MATTER OF STEWART [61 AD3d 60] 61
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court
on February 18, 1998. By order entered July 24, 2008 (953 A2d
1034 [DC 2008]), respondent was disbarred by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals for misconduct that included misap-
propriation and unauthorized use of client funds. This Court,
upon receipt of a certified copy of the District of Columbia or-
der, directed respondent, by order entered December 9, 2008, to
show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed pur-
suant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22. Respondent was personally served
in Maryland with the order to show cause on December 10,
2008.
Two days prior to the return date of the order to show cause,
respondent filed with this Court a letter stating his intention to
resign from the practice of law in New York. Respondent filed
no papers in response to the order to show cause and did not
appear before this Court on the return date.
Respondent’s proposed resignation is not in compliance with
the rules of this Court, and we decline to consider it.
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1022.22, an attorney disciplined in
another jurisdiction may be disciplined by this Court for the
underlying misconduct unless we find ‘‘that the procedure in
the foreign jurisdiction deprived the attorney of due process of
law, that there was insufficient proof that the attorney commit-
ted the misconduct, or, that the imposition of discipline would
be unjust.’’ Respondent has raised no objection to the imposi-
tion of reciprocal discipline by this Court, and we conclude that
he should be disbarred.
MARTOCHE, J.P., FAHEY, GREEN and PINE, JJ., concur.
Order of disbarment entered.
62 61 APPELLATE DIVISION REPORTS, 3d SERIES
[872 NYS2d 27]