Gross Misjudgment

An attorney was suspended for five years by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department for a number of ethical violations. He had, among other things, jointly represented a husband and wife in drafting a separation agreement and thereafter acted as the husband’s lawyer in the ensuing divorce. There were also neglect and escrow violations. The court sets out its sanction analysis:

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, theGrievance Committee points out that the respondent’s disciplinaryhistory consists of three Letters of Caution, one dated April 22, 2004,and two dated March 15, 2004. Those matters involved neglect, failureto forward settlement funds to the complainant, and failure to maintainan escrow account in good order and to make the bank accountable forits errors and inconsistencies. The respondent failed to take theopportunity to request a hearing with respect to those letters andshould not now be permitted to recast them in a way he would like themto be viewed.

By way of mitigation, the respondent submits that he was merelytrying to help out Mr. and Mrs. Freedman, who had little or no liquidassets and who sought his help in terminating their marriage andresolving related issues. He asks the Court to view the Comis matter asa reflection of the inexperience of himself and his staff inmaintaining records and tracking the status of a case. He asks theCourt to also consider the nature of a small, one-attorney practice andhis cooperation with the Grievance Committee.

While the respondent may not have converted Mr. and Mrs.Freedman’s funds for his own benefit, he did convert their funds heldin his escrow account by turning them over to Mr. Adler, anotherclient. While law office failure may have played a role in the initialhandling of the Comis matter, the respondent should not be permitted torely on that excuse for providing a false document to the GrievanceCommittee.

(MIke Frisch)