- 3 -
should contact respondent's counsel to reschedule the conference.
Petitioner failed to attend the conference scheduled for February
5, 1996, or to contact respondent to reschedule the conference.
In an effort to determine why petitioner failed to attend
the conference scheduled for February 5, 1996, respondent at-
tempted to contact petitioner by telephone at the address listed
in the petition. Respondent was advised by New York telephone
directory assistance that there is no listing for petitioner at
that address.
On February 26, 1996, respondent determined that petitioner
is currently employed as an attorney by Georgeson & Co., Inc.
(Georgeson) in New York City. Respondent obtained the telephone
number of Georgeson from telephone directory assistance and left
a message with petitioner's secretary after that secretary
informed respondent that petitioner was unavailable. Petitioner
never returned respondent's call.
Because petitioner had not responded to any of respondent's
attempts to engage in informal discovery, on February 28, 1996,
respondent served on petitioner respondent's interrogatories
pursuant to Rule 71.
On February 29, 1996, respondent again attempted to contact
petitioner by telephone at Georgeson and left a message with his
secretary. Petitioner never returned that call. By letter dated
February 29, 1996 (February 29, 1996 letter), respondent advised
petitioner that answers to respondent's interrogatories were
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011