Matter of Roth (2022 NY Slip Op 04124) Matter of Roth 2022 NY Slip Op 04124 Decided on June 28, 2022 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 and Entered: June 28, 2022 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department Dianne T. Renwick,J.P., Barbara R. Kapnick Anil C. Singh Lizbeth González Tanya R. Kennedy, JJ. Motion No. 2022-00870 Case No. 2019-00091 [*1]In the Matter of Pamela S. Roth (admitted as Pamela Susan Roth), an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Pamela S. Roth, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2422483), Respondent. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on June 26, 1991. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Remi E. Shea, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner. Thomas J. Foley, Esq., Foley Griffin, LLP, for respondent. Per Curiam Respondent Pamela S. Roth was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on June 26, 1991, under the name Pamela Susan Roth. She was engaged in the practice of law within the First Judicial Department during certain of the events at issue. In January 2021, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) served respondent with a notice and petition of amended and supplemental charges (35 charges) alleging professional misconduct stemming from her representation of seven clients. The AGC and respondent now jointly move pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8(a)(5) for discipline by consent and request the imposition of a two-year suspension, and for her successful completion of the New York City Bar Association's Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP). The motion is supported by a joint affirmation containing a statement of facts, conditional admissions of professional misconduct, factors in aggravation, mitigation, and agreed upon discipline. The motion is also accompanied by respondent's affidavit acknowledging her admission to the stipulated facts, her consent to the agreed upon discipline, which she has freely and voluntarily given, and her full awareness of the consequences of such consent (22 NYCRR 1240.8[a][5][i] and [iii]). In March 2017, client DT wrote to respondent requesting that she represent him in a personal injury matter. However, between April and August 2017, respondent failed to respond to DT's letters about his case and to send a written retainer agreement. After DT complained to the AGC, respondent sent DT a retainer agreement in March 2018, which DT signed and returned. Respondent later commenced an action on DT's behalf in October 2018 by filing a summons with notice. The defendant demanded a complaint in December 2018, which respondent did not serve until March 2021. By failing to communicate with DT, respondent violated Rules …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals