Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

55 A.D.3d 1216

In re Haas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 30, 2008

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 2008-10-30

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 2010

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““(b) An application for reinstatement may be granted by this court only upon a showing by the applicant (1) by clear and convincing evidence that applicant has fully complied with the provisions of the order disbarring or suspending applicant, or striking applicant’s name from the roll of attorneys, and that applicant possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law and (2) that, subsequent to the entry of such order, applicant has taken and attained a passing score on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination described in section 520.9(a) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the Admission of Attorneys and Counselors at Law, the passing score thereon being that determined by the New York State Board of Law Examiners pursuant to section 520.9(c) of such rules. A copy of an application for reinstatement shall be served on the [C]ommittee on [professional [Standards and written notice thereof shall be provided by applicant to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. The [Cjommittee shall inquire into the merits of, and may be heard in opposition to, the application. The application may be referred to the appropriate committee on character and fitness or to a judge or referee for a hearing and report to the court.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Attorney Grievance Commission v. Haas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-10-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1985. He resides in Colorado.

¶2By decisions in 1997 and 2004, respondent was suspended from practice by this Court (Matter of Haas, 3 AD3d 732 [2004]; Matter of Haas, 239 AD2d 658 [1997]). He now applies for reinstatement; two prior applications were denied (Matter of Haas, 11 AD3d 877 [2004]; Matter of Haas, 308 AD2d 656 [2003]). Consonant with petitioner’s recommendation and this Court’s rules, we referred the application to the Committee on Character and Fitness (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]). Three members of the Committee interviewed respondent and rendered a report recommending denial of the application at this time. The report expressed concerns about respondent’s debts, his practice intentions, and his candor during the interview.

¶3Upon our review of the application and the subcommittee’s *1217report, we conclude that respondent has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law in this state (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]). We therefore deny his application for reinstatement.

¶4Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent’s application for reinstatement is denied.

/55/ad3d/1216 · .json · Public domain