DOJ-OGR-00010123.jpg
537 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal opinion / case law (westlaw printout)
File Size:
537 KB
Summary
This document is a Westlaw printout of a 2010 New York Supreme Court Appellate Division decision (Matter of Catherine M. Conrad). It details the disciplinary proceedings against attorney Catherine M. Conrad, ruling that her immediate reinstatement to the bar was not warranted due to alcohol dependence and a failure to cooperate with previous investigations. The document appears to be an exhibit (A-5840) filed in a later case (Case 1:20-cv-00888), likely as legal precedent or evidence regarding attorney conduct.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Catherine M. Conrad | Respondent / Suspended Attorney |
Subject of disciplinary proceedings regarding alcohol dependence and failure to cooperate with investigations.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York |
The judicial body issuing the decision.
|
|
| Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department |
The body instituting disciplinary proceedings against Conrad.
|
|
| Thomson Reuters / Westlaw |
Source of the legal document printout.
|
Timeline (2 events)
2010-12-09
Court decision regarding the suspension and reinstatement of Catherine M. Conrad.
New York
Catherine M. Conrad
Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Prior to 2010-12-09
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court case.
|
Relationships (1)
Petitioner vs Respondent in disciplinary hearing.
Key Quotes (2)
"Immediate reinstatement of suspended attorney to practice of law was not warranted; alcohol dependence rendered attorney unfit to practice law"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010123.jpg
Quote #1
"attorney acknowledged during her deposition that her failure to cooperate and her underlying conduct was related to alcohol dependency."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010123.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,287 characters)
Case 1:20-cv-00888-DAB Document 646-32 Filed 05/24/22 Page 25 of 17
A-5840
A-5840
Westlaw.
Page 1
80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090
(Cite as: 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187)
(Cite as: 80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187)
H
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
In the Matter of Catherine M. CONRAD, a suspended attorney:
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
Catherine M. Conrad, Respondent.
In the Matter of Catherine M. CONRAD, a suspended attorney:
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
Catherine M. Conrad, Respondent.
Dec. 9, 2010.
Background: Departmental Disciplinary Committee instituted disciplinary proceedings against attorney. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 48 A.D.3d 187, 846 N.Y.S.2d 912, suspended attorney from practice of law for failure to respond to requests made by Committee pursuant to its investigations of complaints made against her. Committee subsequently moved for order suspending attorney on ground that she suffered from disability by reason of physical or mental infirmity or illness. Attorney cross-moved for order converting her current suspension to medical suspension nunc pro tunc and order vacating suspension and reinstating her to practice of law.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that:
(1) attorney's immediate reinstatement was not warranted, and
(2) attorney was required to prove her fitness to be reinstated.
(1) attorney's immediate reinstatement was not warranted, and
(2) attorney was required to prove her fitness to be reinstated.
Suspension ordered.
West Headnotes
[1] Attorney and Client 45 [Key Icon] 61
45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(C) Discipline
45k61 k. Reinstatement. Most Cited Cases
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(C) Discipline
45k61 k. Reinstatement. Most Cited Cases
Immediate reinstatement of suspended attorney to practice of law was not warranted; alcohol dependence rendered attorney unfit to practice law, and attorney acknowledged during her deposition that her failure to cooperate and her underlying conduct was related to alcohol dependency. N.Y.Ct.Rules, §§ 603.16(c)(1), (f).
[2] Attorney and Client 45 [Key Icon] 61
45 Attorney and Client
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(C) Discipline
45k61 k. Reinstatement. Most Cited Cases
45I The Office of Attorney
45I(C) Discipline
45k61 k. Reinstatement. Most Cited Cases
Attorney who was suspended from practice of law due to her alcohol dependence was required to prove her fitness to be reinstated, and that burden could not be satisfied by attorney's own self-assessment; rather, evaluation by
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
PMD 20
6-1
DOJ-OGR-00010123
6-1
DOJ-OGR-00010123
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document