Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionattorneymotionsustained
attorneymotionsustainedrespondent

Related Cases

Forts v. Ward, 566 F.2d 849, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 744
View Case »
In re Berlin & Denmar Distributors, Inc., Not Reported in B.R. Rptr., 2014 WL 2178027
View Case »
Department of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 119 S.Ct. 687, 142 L.Ed.2d 718, 67 USLW 4073, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 514, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 581, 99 Daily Journal D.A.R. 369, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 64
View Case »
PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management Dist., 177 F.3d 351, 43 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1258
View Case »
Cives Corp. v. Callier Steel Pipe & Tube, Inc., 482 A.2d 852, 39 UCC Rep.Serv. 1705
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Henning, 32 A.D.3d 161, 819 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 05959

Facts

The Grievance Committee served Mary K. Henning with a petition containing three charges of professional misconduct after her conviction for criminal contempt of court. Henning admitted to the conviction but denied engaging in professional misconduct and asserted affirmative defenses. The Special Referee sustained all charges, and the Grievance Committee moved to confirm the report, which Henning did not oppose.

The Grievance Committee served the respondent with a petition dated March 24, 2005, containing three charges of professional misconduct against her. In an answer dated April 14, 2005, the respondent admitted that she had been convicted of criminal contempt of court, denied that she had engaged in professional misconduct, and asserted three affirmative defenses.

Issue

Did Mary K. Henning engage in professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action following her conviction for criminal contempt of court?

Did Mary K. Henning engage in professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action following her conviction for criminal contempt of court?

Rule

The conviction of an attorney for any crime constitutes conclusive evidence of their guilt in any disciplinary proceeding based on that conviction, as per 22 NYCRR 691.7(c).

22 NYCRR 691.7(c) of the rules of this court provides that the conviction of an attorney for any crime constitutes conclusive evidence of his or her guilt of that crime in any disciplinary proceeding instituted against him or her based on that conviction.

Analysis

The court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the applicable rules, confirming that Henning's conviction for criminal contempt was conclusive evidence of her misconduct. The Special Referee properly rejected Henning's affirmative defenses regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the nature of her crime. Given the severity of her actions, which undermined the judicial system, the court found that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.

Based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the applicable rules of the court, and the evidence adduced, the Special Referee properly sustained the three charges.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion to confirm the Special Referee's report and disbarred Mary K. Henning, striking her name from the roll of attorneys.

ORDERED that the petitioner's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Mary K. Henning, is disbarred and her name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

Who won?

The Grievance Committee prevailed in the case, as the court confirmed the Special Referee's report and imposed disbarment due to Henning's serious misconduct.

The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee. Although served with the motion to confirm, the respondent has submitted no response or opposition thereto.

You must be