Per Curiam — The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District served the respondent with a notice of petition and a verified petition, both dated January 12, 2021, containing five charges of professional misconduct. The respondent served and filed a verified answer verified on January 30, 2021, essentially denying all the allegations in the petition. Subsequently, the Grievance Committee served and filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts dated February 18, 2021, and requested the appointment of a special referee for a hearing in view of the disputed facts. The respondent served and filed a reply to the Grievance Committee’s statement of disputed and undisputed facts dated March 9, 2021, disputing the charges and asserting that the appointment of a special referee was unwarranted. By decision and order on application dated April 20, 2021, this Court referred the matter to the Honorable Ralph T. Gazzillo, as Special Referee, to hear and report. A pre-hearing conference was held on June 28, 2021, and a hearing was conducted on August 17, 2021. During the hearing, the Grievance Committee made an application for leave to amend the petition to add charge six to the petition, which application was opposed by the respondent. The Special Referee reserved decision until the parties submitted their post-hearing memorandum. In a report dated October 20, 2021, the Special Referee granted the Grievance Committee’s application for leave to amend the petition to add charge six, and sustained all six charges. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. The respondent submits papers in opposition to the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report, or in the alternative, submits that an admonition or “private censure” would be commensurate with the offense and the precedent of this Court. In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained charges one through five, and those charges are sustained. However, we find that the Special Referee improperly sustained charge six, as the evidence did not support the findings of the Special Referee regarding that charge, and that charge is not sustained.
The Petition
