— Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court in 1980 and maintains an office for the practice of law in the City of Albany.
The petition commencing this disciplinary proceeding contains four charges of misconduct which essentially allege that respondent neglected a client matter and thereafter failed to cooperate with petitioner in its investigation of the client’s complaint. It is also alleged that respondent failed to comply with court rules and a directive of petitioner. By decision dated October 3, 1989, this court granted a motion by petitioner for an order declaring that no factual issues were presented and fixing a time at which respondent could be heard in mitigation or otherwise (see, 22 NYCRR 806.5). Respondent subsequently appeared by counsel and was heard on the issue of mitigation.
The origin of the charges against respondent lies in his representation of one Theresa M. Boisseau, who retained him in July 1985 to represent her in a divorce action. Thereafter,
Shortly thereafter, petitioner advised respondent by letter of his obligation, pursuant to section 806.4 (e) of this court’s rules (22 NYCRR 806.4 [e]), to reimburse it for the stenographic expense incurred in connection with the January 11, 1989 hearing. Respondent failed to reply to this letter and to a follow-up letter sent by petitioner. It was not until this proceeding was commenced that respondent finally paid the amount in question.
Based upon respondent’s conduct described hereinabove, petitioner initially determined that it would admonish respondent both orally and in writing (see, 22 NYCRR 806.4 [c]). Petitioner advised respondent, inter alla, that the oral admonition would be personally delivered to him on April 28, 1989 and that if he failed to appear at such time, petitioner would institute a proceeding in this court. Respondent did not appear, nor did he contact petitioner to explain his failure to appear. Accordingly, petitioner commenced this proceeding.
On the issue of mitigation, respondent submits that neither Mrs. Boisseau nor petitioner suffered any actual prejudice as a result of his conduct and that he never intentionally acted in a manner contrary to the interests of Mrs. Boisseau or petitioner. Respondent explains that his failure to appear to accept the oral admonition by petitioner was the result of certain emotional problems he was experiencing at the time.
Respondent censured. Kane, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.