Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department denied Michael Kevin Nolan’s motion for reinstatement to the practice of law following his suspension under Judiciary Law § 468-a. The court held that he had not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence his compliance with the applicable court rules, including 22 NYCRR § 806.16(c)(5)(i).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Nolan demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he complied with the applicable rules governing reinstatement following suspension.
- Whether Nolan's motion for reinstatement should be granted.
Holdings
- Nolan failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence his compliance with the applicable rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department, including 22 NYCRR 806.16 (c) (5) (i), and therefore was not entitled to reinstatement.
Key quotations
“respondent has not demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, his compliance with the rules of this Court” ([*1])
Factual background
Michael Kevin Nolan was suspended from the practice of law pursuant to a January 2014 order of the Appellate Division, Third Department. He sought reinstatement and submitted a sworn affidavit, exhibits, and a supplemental affirmation. The court determined that he had not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence compliance with the applicable rules, specifically 22 NYCRR 806.16 (c) (5) (i).
Procedural history
Nolan had been suspended by a January 2014 order of the Appellate Division, Third Department. He moved for reinstatement under the applicable attorney-discipline rules, submitting an affidavit, exhibits, and a supplemental affirmation. After considering the submissions and the Attorney Grievance Committee's response, the court determined that Nolan failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence his compliance with the court's rules and denied the motion.