Matter of Mertz (2019 NY Slip Op 03155) Matter of Mertz 2019 NY Slip Op 03155 Decided on April 25, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department Per Curiam. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on April 25, 2019 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department Hon.Dianne T. Renwick,Justice Presiding, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Angela M. Mazzarelli Ellen Gesmer Jeffrey K. Oing,Justices. M-254 [*1]In the Matter of Peter Alan Mertz, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Peter Alan Mertz (OCA Att. Reg. 1476787), Respondent. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Peter Alan Mertz, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on March 5, 1979. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Jeremy S. Garber, Esq. of counsel), for petitioner. John L. Russo, Esq., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Respondent Peter Mertz was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on March 5, 1979, under the name Peter Alan Mertz, and at all times relevant herein maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department. The Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8(a)(5)(i) provides that, at any time after the Committee files a petition alleging professional misconduct against an attorney, the parties may file a joint motion requesting the imposition of discipline by consent, which must include a stipulation of facts, the respondent's conditional admission of acts of professional misconduct and specific rules or standards of conduct violated, any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and an agreed-upon disciplinary sanction (see 22 NYCRR 1240.8[a][5][i], [ii]). If the motion is granted, the Court must issue a decision imposing discipline upon the respondent based on the stipulated facts and as agreed upon in the joint motion. By joint motion dated January 15, 2019, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) and respondent ask this Court, pursuant to the framework outlined above, to suspend him from the practice of law for two years. The motion is supported by a joint affirmation which contains a statement of facts, conditional admissions, factors in aggravation and mitigation, and agreed upon discipline. The motion is further accompanied by respondent's affidavit acknowledging his admission to the stipulated facts, his consent to the agreed upon discipline, which he has freely and voluntarily given, and his full awareness of the consequences of such consent. The parties have filed an admission of facts which recounts a variety of conduct that resulted in nine categories of charges against respondent. The stipulated facts, grouped according to the charges they relate to, are as follows:Charges 1-4 (alleging violations of rule 5.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) (prohibiting formation of a partnership with a non ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals