Duty To Cooperate

A lawyer who failed to participate in disciplinary proceedings has ben disbarred by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department.

Despite the poor and unfortunate health condition of respondent, which this Court takes into consideration as a mitigating factor, this Court confirms the Hearing Panel’s report in its entirety, including its recommendation of disbarment. Respondent has repeatedly demonstrated a disregard for the rules of the Court. The consistent nature of these acts of negligence and misconduct make respondent’s actions, or rather, inactions, evident violations of rule 8.4(d) and rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Therefore, respondent has both conducted himself in a manner prejudicial to the interest of justice and in a manner that adversely reflects upon his fitness as a lawyer.

This Court has disbarred attorneys who have failed to cooperate with the Committee, answer charges, and appear at hearings despite previous evidence of lack of capacity or health related limitations (see Matter of Stern, 118 AD3d 85 [1st Dept 2014]. Moreover, in the strikingly analogous Matter of Blank (110 AD3d 112 [1st Dept 2013], despite evidence of mental illness, the respondent was disbarred for, inter alia, neglect of two client matters, failure to return unearned fees, failure to satisfy default judgments obtained by affected clients, and failure to answer charges and appear in at least one disciplinary proceeding.

New York treats failure to cooperate as serious misconduct

This Court considers the actions of respondent serious breaches of ethical and professional conduct. The integrity of the legal profession is compromised when counselors are uncooperative with administrative authority and fail to discharge their professional obligations to their clients. In this matter, respondent’s three named clients have suffered financial harm. This Court agrees with the Hearing Panel’s assessment that respondent could have chosen to, “associate[] other counsel to assist him in performing work that he could not physically do himself . . . [or] if Respondent could no longer perform his professional duties, he had an obligation to return all or part of the retainer funds he had accepted.”

Moreover, this Court has ruled that either failure to cooperate with the Committee or a default on charges, coupled with an evasion of hearings before a panel, independently serve as sufficient basis for disbarment.

He had previously been subject to interim suspension. (Mike Frisch)