New members to the Committee on Professional Standards.
Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, recently announced the appointment of three new members to the Third Department’s Committee on Professional Standards.
The Committee consists of twenty-one members, all of whom serve without compensation, and is charged with the investigation of alleged professional misconduct by attorneys who practice in the twenty-eight upstate counties which constitute the Third Department.
The three new members, who were each appointed to a three-year term expiring in March 2009, are:
Joseph M. Curtin, of Saratoga Springs - Mr. Curtin is a graduate of St. Michael’s College and received a Masters of Education degree from the University of Vermont. He was previously a Vice President and Acting President of The Sage Colleges and is currently the President of the Independent College Fund of New York, Inc., in Albany.
Leonard A. Govern, of Walton - Mr. Govern, a long-time resident of Delaware County, is the President and CEO of The Reporter Company Printers and Publishers, Inc. which is headquartered in Walton.
Edgar G. Purcell, Jr., Esq., of Glens Falls - Mr. Purcell is a graduate of St. Lawrence University and Georgetown University Law School. He practiced for many years as a partner in the Plattsburgh law firm of Stafford & Purcell.
The Presiding Justice also announced the re-appointment of Committee members Vincent Capasso, Jr., Esq., of Schenectady, Thomas C. Emerson, Esq., of Norwich, and Joan Tailleur, Esq., of West Coxsackie.
Finally, the Presiding Justice announced the appointment of Joseph M. Brennan, Esq., of Albany, as Chairperson of the Committee, for a one-year term, effective April 1, 2006. Hon. Philip S. Caponera, of Colonie, was appointed Vice Chairperson of the Committee, also for a one-year term, effective April 1, 2006.
Contact New Jersey lawyers
now and obtain a free case evaluation.
| |
 Did You Know? |
|
|
|
|
| |
Mediation may not be the most appropriate avenue for resolution in all cases.
For example, it may not be appropriate in cases where: A definitive or authoritative resolution of the matter is required; The matter involves or may bear upon significant questions of Government policy that require additional procedures before a final resolution may be made; Maintaining established policies that apply to many people is especially important; The matter significantly affects persons or groups who are not parties to the process; A full public record of the proceeding is important; or The agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction over the matter with authority to alter the disposition of the matter in light of changed circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
