Mass.gov
   
Mass.Gov home Mass.gov  home get things done agencies Search Mass.Gov


Commonwealth of Massachusetts

No. BD-1999-0017

IN RE: JAMES C. FARRINGTON

S.J.C. Order (Disbarment) entered by Justice Abrams on June 15, 2000.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This matter is before the court on an Information and Record of Proceedings for Reciprocal Discipline. The respondent, James C. Farrington, has been disbarred by the State of New York. An order of temporary suspension was entered in Massachusetts on May 27, 1999. The respondent has not filed an affidavit of compliance with the order and has not otherwise participated in these proceedings.

Based on the opinion from the Supreme Court - Appellate Division Third Department affixed hereto, I hereby disbar the respondent and order that his name be stricken forthwith from the Roll of Attorneys.

By the Court,

RUTH I. ABRAMS
Associate Justice

DATED: 15 June 2000


Supreme Court - Appellate Division
Third Department

Decided and Entered: March 16, 2000

In the Matter of JAMES C. FARRINGTON,
a Suspended Attorney and Counselor-at-Law.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS,
     Petitioner;

JAMES C. FARRINGTON,
     Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Calendar Date: January 3, 2000

Before: Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ.

Mark S. Ochs, Committee on Professional Standards (Michael Philip Jr. of counsel), Albany, for petitioner.

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this court in 1982. He is currently suspended from practice (Matter of Farrington, 257 AD2d 914).

Respondent has not answered or otherwise appeared in response to a petition of charges and a subsequent motion for default judgment by petitioner, the Committee on Professional Standards, although both were personally served upon him. Petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the Motion and the charges. Under such circumstances, respondent is deemed to have admitted the charges and we grant the motion (see, e.g., Matter of Petrolawicz, 228 AD2d 1005).

We find respondent guilty of the following charges of professional misconduct set forth in the petition: neglect of legal matters entrusted to him by two clients, in violation of the attorney disciplinary rules (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] (3]) (charge I); failure to respond to communications from said clients (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5], [7]) (charge II); conversion of funds held on behalf of two clients (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4], [5], (7]; 1200.46) (charge III); failure to promptly notify a client of receipt of funds and to account for funds (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c]) (charge IV); engaging in conflict of interest by accepting investments and a loan from a client without advising the client of the benefits and importance of obtaining independent counsel or other disinterested advice before entering the transactions (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a] [5], (7], 1200.23) (charge V); failure to cooperate with petitioner (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] (5], (7]) (charge VI); and failure to comply with the rules of this court requiring respondent to reimburse petitioner for stenographic expenses (22 NYCRR 806.4 [e]) and to file an affidavit of compliance with the order suspending him (22 NYCRR 806.9 [f]) (see, 22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a], [5]) (charge VII). We do not find him guilty of that portion of charge III which alleged violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (3) and that portion of charge V which alleged violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.20.

We conclude that respondent should be disbarred.

Peters, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo, and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the motion for a default judgment is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct charged and specified in the petition except to the extent that charge III alleged violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (3) and charge V alleged violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.20; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is disbarred and his name is struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law-before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority or to give to another any opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this court's rule (22 NYCRR 806.9) regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys.

ENTER:

/s/Michael J. Novack

Michael J. Novack
Clerk of the Court



BBO/OBC Privacy Policy. Please direct all questions to webmaster@massbbo.org.
© 2001. Board of Bar Overseers. Office of Bar Counsel. All rights reserved.