Poor Judgment Better Than Dishonesty

A four-month suspension is too harsh for non-venal escrow account violations, according to the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department.

The proper sanction is a public censure:

 Hearing Panel report, and instead imposing a four-month suspension. Respondent offers no opposition.

We have consistently held that public censure is appropriate for escrow violations such as improper record keeping and nonvenal conversions, especially where a respondent expresses remorse and cooperates fully with the Committee (citations omitted) Such a penalty is particularly appropriate in cases where, as here, there were findings made by both the Referee and Hearing Panel that “the conduct giving rise to the charges reflected poor judgment rather than dishonesty” (Matter of Cohen, 12 AD3d at 31). To be sure, like the Referee, we are troubled by the fact that respondent expressed remorse for his misconduct in an equivocal manner. We, however, agree with the Hearing Panel that this fact alone was insufficient to impose a four-month suspension under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted to the extent of confirming the Hearing Panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the charges, but denied to the extent it seeks to disaffirm the Hearing Panel’s sanction recommendation of public censure, and respondent is publicly censured.

The proposed suspension came from the referee. (Mike Frisch)