From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Duthie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1993
189 A.D.2d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Summary

In Matter of Duthie (189 A.D.2d 197, 198), the mitigating factors present included "sincere remorse" and "candid testimony".

Summary of this case from Matter of Clay

Opinion

April 1, 1993

Naomi F. Simon of counsel (Hal R. Lieberman, attorney), for petitioner.

Daniel P. Duthie, respondent pro se.


Respondent, Daniel P. Duthie, was admitted to the practice of law under the name Daniel Patrick Duthie by the Appellate Division, Second Department, on April 27, 1977, and maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Department during the period relevant to this disciplinary proceeding.

On April 26, 1990 respondent was convicted on two misdemeanor counts of failing to timely file New York State income tax returns for the years 1986 and 1987, and was sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment plus a $10,000 fine. Thereafter, respondent pleaded guilty in Federal District Court for the Eastern District to failure to file his 1987 Federal tax return, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced on May 8, 1992 to 60 months' probation, with a direction that he pay all taxes due the I.R.S., home detention for five months, and 250 hours of community service with the Nassau County Law Services.

In recommending a sanction of public censure, a Hearing Panel of the Departmental Disciplinary Committee considered as mitigating factors respondent's otherwise unblemished legal career and a reputation among his peers for honesty and integrity, his candid testimony before the Committee and sincere remorse with respect to the crimes committed, and the absence of any evidence that his conduct was motivated by venality or dishonesty, or involved client funds. The Committee now moves to confirm the report of the Hearing Panel and its recommendation of public censure, and the respondent, appearing pro se, also moves to confirm the report and recommendation. Our review of the facts and mitigating circumstances supports our conclusion that the respective motions should be granted, the Hearing Panel's report should be confirmed, and respondent should be publicly censured (see, Matter of Hollman, 164 A.D.2d 328; Matter of Frazer, 139 A.D.2d 259; Matter of McCabe, 110 A.D.2d 335).

CARRO, J.P., ELLERIN, WALLACH, KUPFERMAN and RUBIN, JJ., concur.

The Hearing Panel's report is confirmed, and respondent is censured.


Summaries of

Matter of Duthie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 1, 1993
189 A.D.2d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

In Matter of Duthie (189 A.D.2d 197, 198), the mitigating factors present included "sincere remorse" and "candid testimony".

Summary of this case from Matter of Clay
Case details for

Matter of Duthie

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of DANIEL P. DUTHIE, an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
596 N.Y.S.2d 14

Citing Cases

Matter of Minkel

Moreover, this Court has previously declined to follow this policy when the serious crime is based upon the…

Matter of Clay

In addition, unlike Minkel, respondent did not pay any estimated taxes for the years in issue. In Matter of…