Disciplinary, Not Disability, Suspension Imposed

An attorney’s request for a disability rather than disciplinary suspension was rejected by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department.

By motion dated June 29, 2017, the Attorney Grievance Committee seeks an order, pursuant to the Rules for Disciplining Matters (22 NYCRR) 1240.9(a)(2), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court. The Committee cites respondent’s admissions under oath that he committed acts of professional misconduct, namely the conversion and/or misappropriation of client and third-party funds, which immediately threaten the public interest.

Respondent does not dispute the facts alleged by the Committee, and admits he used client and third-party funds for his own personal purposes related to his narcotics addiction. Respondent avers that he does not owe money to any clients other than one to whom he owes approximately $50,000, and for whom his counsel is currently holding $43,000 in trust. Respondent expects to finalize restitution in the near future.

Respondent’s counsel avers that because respondent currently resides in California (where he is not admitted to practice), it can be inferred that he does not intend to practice law for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, in light of respondent’s “intense” commitment to recovery from his longstanding drug addiction, counsel contends that respondent “is not only currently incapable of practicing law but cannot adequately defend himself against the charges against him.”

But no disability suspension on this record

Respondent has included a letter from a California licensed therapist who worked with him at an inpatient rehabilitation facility from May to December 2016. The therapist attests to respondent’s commitment to recovery, and states —

“I feel it is time that [respondent] resume back with his life not only as a sober individual but also as a practicing attorney. I do feel [respondent] has become capable to deal with the stressors of his job and has learned how to cope in a healthier manner with the day to day practices of his life” (emphasis added). Respondent has also included affidavits from his Narcotics Anonymous sponsor and two other Narcotics Anonymous members, all of whom attest to his commitment to recovery.

The Committee opposes respondent’s request for a disability suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.14(b), arguing that he has not submitted any medical documentation to support such request. The Committee contends that the therapist’s letter undermines respondent’s application, since she opines that it is time for him to resume the practice of law. Furthermore, the affidavits from his fellow Narcotics Anonymous members do not constitute “medical proof demonstrating incapacity” under 1240.14(b). The Committee notes that respondent may offer the letter and affidavits as mitigation at a hearing based upon formal charges but that they are irrelevant in the context of the current proceeding.

Thus

The record, as it stands, does not sufficiently support respondent’s request for a disability suspension. Respondent has not presented any actual medical evidence that he is incapacitated from practicing law, which is required under 22 NYCRR 1240.14(b)…

Respondent is granted leave to renew his request for a disability suspension upon submission of proper medical proof demonstrating incapacity.

(Mike Frisch)