Matter of Gold

Annotate this Case
Matter of Gold 2012 NY Slip Op 08222 Decided on November 29, 2012 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: November 29, 2012

[*1]In the Matter of LAWRENCE D. GOLD, a Suspended Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; LAWRENCE D. GOLD, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2242675)

Calendar Date: October 9, 2012
Before: Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ.


Peter M. Torncello, Committee on Professional
Standards, Albany (Steven D. Zayas of counsel), for petitioner.
Lawrence D. Gold, Monticello, respondent pro se.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER



Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1989. He maintained a law office in the Village of Monticello, Sullivan County.

By decision dated July 9, 2009, respondent was suspended from the practice of law by this Court for a period of three years (Matter of Gold, 64 AD3d 990 [2009]). He now applies for reinstatement. Petitioner advises that it does not oppose the application.

Our examination of the papers submitted on the application indicates that respondent has complied with the provisions of the order of suspension and with this Court's rules regarding the conduct of suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9). We are also satisfied that respondent has complied with the requirements of this Court's rule regarding reinstatement (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]) and that he possesses the character and general fitness to resume the practice of law.

Accordingly, the application is granted and respondent is reinstated to the practice of [*2]law, effective immediately.

Mercure, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.