Heir To Disbarment

Reciprocal disbarment has been imposed by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department based on sanctions imposed in Florida.

The referee found

“In December 2005, [r]espondent’s father, Richard I. Cowitt, passed away. At the time of his father’s death, [r]espondent’s sister, Marlene Klein, was married and had two children. Marlene passed away the following year, in July 2006. In September 2009, [r]espondent probated his father’s estate when he filed a Petition for Summary Administration . . . in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In said Petition, [r]espondent listed only himself as a beneficiary of the estate, intentionally neglecting to identify his deceased sister’s family as beneficiaries. Further, [r]espondent accessed his father’s financial accounts at two financial institutions after notifying them that he was the only beneficiary of his father’s estate.

“Respondent admittedly spent the assets (approximately $70,000) in all but one of the financial accounts for his personal benefit. Specifically, [r]espondent testified that he received $52,000 in 2009, and used the funds to pay child support to his ex-wife and to stay afloat. Respondent failed to inform his sister’s estate that funds were available from his father’s estate until approximately 2012, when [r]espondent only informed his sister’s estate of one IRA account on which his sister was explicitly listed as the only beneficiary. Subsequently, the father’s estate was reopened. And on January 30, 2013, [r]espondent was ordered by the probate court to pay, within [60] days, his sister’s estate the amount of $25,000. On March 29, 2013, [r]espondent filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.”

The court

The referee further found that inasmuch as the respondent held onto the proceeds of his father’s estate for his own benefit, his conduct constituted “intentional theft.” In mitigation, the referee considered, inter alia, the absence of a prior disciplinary record; the respondent’s personal or emotional problems; his full disclosure to the disciplinary board or cooperative attitude; his remorse; and character evidence. The referee also considered, inter alia, the following aggravating factors: the respondent’s substantial legal experience at the time of the events; that his conduct involved a dishonest or selfish motive and multiple offenses; the fact that the victim was vulnerable; and the respondent’s indifference to making restitution. Under the totality of the circumstances, the referee found that the mitigating factors did not outweigh the aggravating factors, and recommended the respondent’s disbarment.

The court accepted the recommended sanction. (Mike Frisch)