PER CURIAM — By opinion and order on sanction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (hereinafter the District Court) dated September 6, 2018, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law in the District Court for one year and until further order of the District Court. The opinion and order on sanction was preceded by an opinion and order of the District Court dated September 14, 2017, which suspended the respondent in the interim from the practice of law for an indefinite period until further order of the District Court. The underlying conduct that resulted in the respondent’s interim suspension concerned his negligent handling of numerous bankruptcy matters. By opinion and order of this Court dated July 11, 2018, the respondent was suspended, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, from the practice of law for an indefinite period, effective immediately, based on the District Court’s September 14, 2017, order (see Matter of Webber, 163 AD3d 138). In the opinion and order on sanction, the District Court noted that the Committee on Grievances for the District Court concluded that the respondent engaged in conduct that violated New York Rules of Professional Conduct rules 1.1(a); 1.3(a); 1.3(b); 1.4(a)(1)-(4); 3.4(c); 7.1(a),(e) and (f); 8.4(a); and 8.4(d). In determining that the appropriate sanction was a one-year suspension, the District Court stated:
“Respondent made a submission on the disciplinary sanction to be imposed. The Committee has considered the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and Respondent’s cooperative attitude towards this disciplinary proceeding, among other mitigating factors. See ABA, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions §9.32 (1986, amended 1992). There are serious aggravating circumstances present here, including Respondent’s pattern of misconduct, and the fact that his response to the charges was far more dismissive than it was remorseful. See id. at §9.22. The Court also notes that prior to initiation of this disciplinary proceeding, the Bankruptcy Court tried in vain to assist Respondent for well over a year to improve his practices; Respondent repeatedly failed to abide by the Bankruptcy Court’s instructions. The Committee concludes that the protection of the public and of the judicial system is best served by suspending Respondent from the practice of law in this district.”
