DOJ-OGR-00010125.jpg
344 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal case excerpt / database printout (thomson reuters/westlaw)
File Size:
344 KB
Summary
This document is a printout from a legal database (Thomson Reuters) containing the conclusion of a New York Appellate Division court opinion ('In re Conrad'). It outlines the suspension of a respondent (Conrad) from the practice of law in New York for an indefinite period, effective retroactively to December 18, 2007. The court denied a cross-motion for reinstatement, requiring an expert's evaluation of fitness for any future motion. The document bears a Department of Justice stamp (DOJ-OGR-00010125).
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conrad | Respondent |
Subject of the legal proceeding ('In re Conrad'); suspended from the practice of law in New York.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. |
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department (Court issuing the opinion).
|
|
| State of New York |
Jurisdiction of law practice.
|
|
| Thomson Reuters |
Publisher of the legal database document.
|
|
| US Gov. |
Mentioned in copyright footer.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (referenced in footer stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction where the suspension occurred.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for an indefinite period until further order of this Court"Source
DOJ-OGR-00010125.jpg
Quote #1
"seeking reinstatement to the practice of law should be denied without prejudice to a further motion for the same relief, supported by an expert's evaluation attesting to her present fitness to practice law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00010125.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,137 characters)
Case 1:20-cv-00383-JPO Document 616-3 Filed 03/24/22 Page 27 of 17
A-5842
A-5842
Page 3
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)
nite period until further order of this Court, nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007, and the branch of respondent's cross motion seeking reinstatement to the practice of law should be denied without prejudice to a further motion for the same relief, supported by an expert's evaluation attesting to her present fitness to practice law.
Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for an indefinite period until further order of this Court, effective nunc pro tunc to December 18, 2007. Cross motion denied, without prejudice to a further motion, as indicated. So much of the Opinion Per Curiam and order of this Court entered on December 18, 2007 (M-4837) incorporating a finding of non-cooperation vacated, as indicated.
All concur.
N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2010.
In re Conrad
80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090
In re Conrad
80 A.D.3d 168, 913 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 09090
END OF DOCUMENT
© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
6-3
DOJ-OGR-00010125
DOJ-OGR-00010125
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document