Legal Opinion
In re Entin
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 31, 2001PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1985. He formerly maintained a law office in Albany County and presently resides in Iowa.
Having granted petitioner’s motion for an order declaring that the pleadings raised no factual issues and having considered respondent’s submission in mitigation (see, 22 NYCRR 806.5), we find respondent guilty of having charged excessive fees in violation of the attorney discipline rules (see, Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7]; DR 2-106 [a] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7); 1200.11 (a)]). The charge resulted…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- In re SternAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- In re FalickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- In re CarrollAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- In re SealyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
3Cited by4 opinions
- Disciplinary Counsel v. HollandOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- Rivera v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- Cerbelli v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2009
- Disciplinary Counsel v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court · 2005