Event Details
December 09, 2010
Description
Court decision regarding the suspension and reinstatement of Catherine M. Conrad.
Participants (2)
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Catherine M. Conrad | person | 53 | View Entity |
| Supreme Court, Appellate Division | person | 0 | View Entity |
Source Documents (1)
DOJ-OGR-00010123.jpg
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.
Related Events
Events with shared participants
Court proceedings in US v. Daugerdas involving the examination of witnesses Trzaskoma and Conrad
2012-02-15 • Southern District (implied NY)
Attorney Registration Information for Catherine M. Conrad was recorded.
2011-06-24
Legal case 'In the Matter of Catherine M. Conrad, 48 A.D.3d 187' (1st Dep't).
2007-12-18
Legal case 'In the Matter of Catherine M. Conrad, 80 A.D.3d 187' (1st Dep't).
2010-12-09
A past voir dire process is discussed, where the plan was for Judge Pauley to question potential juror Catherine M. Conrad to determine if she was the same person from a court opinion.
Date unknown
Catherine M. Conrad was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York.
2000-01-26 • State of New York
The Court suspended respondent Catherine M. Conrad from the practice of law for failure to respond to requests from the Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
2007-12-18 • First Judicial Department
The Committee obtained a psychiatric evaluation of respondent Catherine M. Conrad.
2009-01-01
A subsequent re-evaluation of respondent Catherine M. Conrad was conducted.
2010-01-01
Catherine M. Conrad is called as a witness, granted use immunity after asserting her Fifth Amendment privilege, and questioned by Mr. Gair. She admits her prior testimony contained lies and omissions.
2012-02-15 • Courtroom
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event