In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1, Respondents. Attorney Grievance Committees for the Fourth Judicial Department, Petitioner

[57 NYS3d 306] In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1, Respondents. Attorney Grievance Committees for the Fourth Judicial Department, Petitioner. Fourth Department, June 9, 2017 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL Daniel A. Drake, Principal Counsel, Seventh Judicial District Grievance Committee, Rochester, for petitioner. Respondents, pro se. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] OPINION OF THE COURT Per Curiam. In December 2016, the Grievance Committees applied to this Court for an order directing the respondents named on the attached list to show cause why they should not be suspended from the practice of law on the grounds that they violated Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1 by failing to comply with attorney registration requirements, and that they failed to respond to numerous written inquiries from the Office of Court Administration and the Grievance Committees concerning their delinquency. By order entered December 27, 2016, this Court directed respondents to show cause in writing on or before March 1, 2017, why they should not be suspended for failing to comply with attorney registration requirements. Respondents either failed to respond in any fashion to the show cause order or otherwise failed to show cause why they should not be suspended. The failure to comply with attorney registration requirements violates Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1 and constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice warranting the imposition of discipline (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 54 AD3d 9, 10 [2008]). Accordingly, we conclude that the respondents named on the attached list should be suspended until further order of this Court. Smith, J.P., Carni, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Troutman, JJ., concur. Order of suspension entered.