Pook Good Mook posted:

Not a contract or property lawyer, but won't it be incumbent upon them to prove the contents of a written contract if you ultimately sue them for trespass?

I'm not trying to give legal advice, just curious about how this could go if they can't dig up these decades old documents. Or even prove there was an amendment to the agreement re buying back the unused propane.

Look Sir Droids posted:

"Customer will be responsible for any removal charges" and "for any necessary excavation and landscaping associated with removal."

It's loving dumb. The tank is 25 years old. They don't actually want it. Just do it yourself and charge me some fee, but why are you making me call in a third-party for your old rear end tank you don't actually want?

evilweasel posted:

because extracting an underground propane tank is a good way to incur some serious environmental liability and they probably rightly think you will lose your poo poo at the cost if they try to charge it to you and they don't want to eat the cost themselves

algebra testes posted:

Got a trial today and im hungover as gently caress am I doing it right?

Look Sir Droids posted:

They said it's usually $300-400. And they, the propane company, still has to come out there and disconnect it, pick it up out of the hole, and haul it off. Which they don't charge a fee for. Like, just charge me the $300-400 yourself and do it all yourself then.

algebra testes posted:

Got a trial today and im hungover as gently caress am I doing it right?

Vox Nihili posted:

This is the lawyer and law student thread.

SlyFrog posted:

Toona Says Relax

Selachian posted:

Pros and Cons

Toona the Cat posted:

Discendo Vox posted:

Nice piece of fish posted:

Is the term actually "criminal lawyer" because that can mean something else.

Whitlam posted:

Tell us about it. It isn't funny, but basically Victoria's legal system is about to implode because it turns out a handful of criminal defence lawyers were acting as police informants, for those who've missed the story.

Nice piece of fish posted:

Wow that's really really bad. Prison sentences for every lawyer and for the cops and prosecution for aggravated dereliction of duty in using privileged information to obtain convictions but of course lol that'll never happen.

joat mon posted:

I appreciated this. But I really want to know how Matlock Vapors got it.

Whitlam posted:

Tell us about it. It isn't funny, but basically Victoria's legal system is about to implode because it turns out a handful of criminal defence lawyers were acting as police informants, for those who've missed the story.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/Ugarles/status/1093539653230182400?s=19

Professional click zone

quote:

Per Curiam
*1 Respondent Dennis H. McCoobery was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on February 2, 1998. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

In July 2018, the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) commenced this disciplinary proceeding by a petition of charges (Judiciary Law § 90[2]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8), alleging that respondent was guilty of professional misconduct, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), based on two instances of intentional misrepresentations made to a partner at the law firm at which he had previously worked.

Now, by joint motion, the parties move pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8(a)(5) for discipline on consent, and request the imposition of a three-month suspension.

The parties' submission conforms to the procedural requirements for a joint motion for the imposition of discipline on consent (22 NYCRR 1240.8[a][5][i]-[iii] ), and should be granted. The parties stipulate to the following facts:

From 2008, through May 2, 2017, respondent was employed as an associate with a law firm, and both allegations in the present petition stem from work he performed for one partner (the partner) at this firm.

In the first instance, respondents's law firm was representing a commercial landlord in a real estate litigation matter. At the request of the partner, respondent was tasked with drafting the client's appellate opposition brief to be submitted to this Court. In or about February 2017, respondent filed the client's brief without the partner's knowledge or direction.

In or about March 2017, not knowing that respondent had already filed the client's brief, the partner asked respondent for his work so that he could review it. Rather than tell the partner that he had already filed the brief, respondent gave the partner what he falsely represented as a draft of the brief. The partner, believing the brief to be only a draft, made revisions which he then gave to respondent. When the partner discovered respondent's actions, he confronted respondent, who acknowledged that he had filed the brief prior to allowing the partner to review it.

In the second instance, respondent's firm was representing a plaintiff in connection with a real estate matter. The client's appellate brief, drafted by the partner, was due to be filed with this Court in November 2016. Respondent, at the partner's request, was tasked with sending the brief and record on appeal to the firm's printing vendor for service upon the opposing counsel and for filing with this Court. Respondent forwarded the relevant documents to the printing vendor, however, he failed to instruct the vendor to serve and file said documents. Nevertheless, respondent falsely told the partner that he had instructed the vendor to file and serve the documents.

In order to conceal from the partner that he failed to properly instruct the vendor, in or about late December 2016, respondent falsely told the partner that there had been a stipulation between himself and opposing counsel to permit an extension for the brief to be filed in late January 2017. To further conceal his misrepresentation, respondent fabricated an opposition brief, which he provided to the partner as though it were genuine. Respondent constructed a false chain of emails to make it appear as if he had received the fabricated brief from opposing counsel, which he forwarded to the partner.

The partner, who believed the opposition brief to be genuine, drafted a reply brief, which respondent falsely told the partner was due on February 10, 2017. The partner forwarded the reply brief to the client for review.

Respondent also falsely told the partner that the client's appeal was calendared for this Court's June 2017 term. On May 1, 2017, when this Court released its June 2017 calendar, the client's appeal was not on it. After noticing the appeal had not been calendered, the partner told respondent he was going to call opposing counsel to find out why the appeal had not been calendared. Respondent then admitted to the partner that he failed to inform the printing vendor to serve and file the subject documents and admitted his deceptions. On May 2, 2017, respondent tendered his resignation from the firm.

Respondent conditionally admits that his actions, as set forth above, violated all four charges as alleged in the petition of charges. Respondent was charged with violating Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) (two charges); rule 1.3(b) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer); and rule 8.4(h) (a lawyer shall not engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer).

The parties agree that there are no aggravating factors outside of respondent's misconduct itself. Moreover, the parties have stipulated to the following facts in mitigation: there was no irreparable harm to any client as a result of respondent's misconduct; during the period at issue, respondent's father was diagnosed with a terminal illness and passed away in May 2018, the stress of which caused respondent to be distracted at work for a significant period of time; and he has no prior disciplinary history in more than 20 years of practicing law.

The parties cite similar matters involving neglect, misrepresentation and failure to communicate that have resulted in discipline ranging from censure (see Matter of Leighton, 158 A.D.3d 23, 66 N.Y.S.3d 137 [1st Dept. 2018] ) to a nine-month suspension (see Matter of Weisel, 108 A.D.3d 39, 965 N.Y.S.2d 28 [1st Dept. 2013] ). However, under the circumstances of this case, including the mitigating factors stipulated to here, the parties agree that the appropriate discipline to be imposed on respondent is a three-month suspension (see Matter of Alford, 166 A.D.3d 80, 85 N.Y.S.3d 54 [1st Dept. 2018] [three-month suspension]; see also Matter of Marshall, 153 A.D.3d 1, 57 N.Y.S.3d 476 [1st Dept. 2017] [same] ).

In light of respondent's admitted misconduct, the mitigating factors presented and lack of aggravation, and the relevant case law, we find that a three-month suspension is a reasonable punishment for the type of misconduct in which respondent engaged.

Accordingly, the parties' joint motion for discipline by consent should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of three months and until further order of this Court, and the Committee's separately filed petition of charges be denied as moot.

Soothing Vapors posted:

for the D. Voxes and Toonas out there:


A three-month suspension for engaging in complex, convoluted fraud. Cool and normal profession

Soothing Vapors posted:

My favorite detail is the partner writing a reply brief to a nonexistent response

evilweasel posted:

oh man i didn't realize that guy had been practicing for twenty loving years

i assumed it was some first-year lawyer who had never had a real job completely over their head and panicking

Phil Moscowitz posted:

That is the best part. I wonder if he discussed it with the associate who was like "Hmm, this argument is actually bad. Can you believe this guy? lol"

Toona the Cat posted:

I somehow still have access to Westlaw. Neat.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

That is the best part. I wonder if he discussed it with the associate who was like "Hmm, this argument is actually bad. Can you believe this guy? lol"

quote:

However, under the circumstances of this case, including the mitigating factors stipulated to here, the parties agree that the appropriate discipline to be imposed on respondent is a three-month suspension

Whitlam posted:

Tell us about it. It isn't funny, but basically Victoria's legal system is about to implode because it turns out a handful of criminal defence lawyers were acting as police informants, for those who've missed the story.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

https://twitter.com/Ugarles/status/1093539653230182400?s=19

Professional click zone

Phil Moscowitz posted:

Is it through a corporate account? If so stop using it idiot

Look Sir Droids posted:

What mitigating factors? Dude was 20 yrs in.

Kalman posted:

Dude’s dad had just died. It’s still inexplicable levels of fuckup, but that is a legitimate mitigating factor (even if 3 months is still ridiculously low.)

evilweasel posted:

the guy's dad died over a year afterwards: may 2018, all of the conduct was in 2017

Look Sir Droids posted:

Was he sick? I can see the stress of caring for his dying dad causing him to miss deadlines being a mitigating factor.

But yeah, lol 3 months. I mean, his career is over anyway. But still.

evilweasel posted:

I read that as the diagnosis was during all of this happening but the death was well afterwards. Or maybe 2018 is a typo and it should be 2017, but either way, his dad was alive while he was fabricating opposition briefs.

evilweasel posted:

the guy's dad died over a year afterwards: may 2018, all of the conduct was in 2017