Legal Opinion

In re Chulak

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

Decided June 9, 1998PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1986. He has maintained a law office in New Jersey, where he was also admitted to practice in 1986.

*745Petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, moves for an order reciprocally disciplining respondent (see, 22 NYCRR 806.19) by reason of his recent three-month suspension from practice imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Respondent was suspended for lack of candor toward a tribunal, assisting a non-attorney in the unauthorized practice of law, and misrepresentations.

Upon this record and having heard respondent in mitigation, we…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re GreenfieldAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  2. In re GrushkoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re ChulakAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
  2. In re LolioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
  3. In re GaimanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  4. In re LolioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API