Picture Of Disbarment

The New York Appellate Division for the Fourth Judicial Department has disbarred an attorney

In August 2020, the Grievance Committee filed a petition asserting against respondent a single charge of professional misconduct, which alleges that he engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer by sending to a client via text message four unsolicited images of his genitalia. The Grievance Committee simultaneously filed a motion for an order suspending respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis on the ground that he had failed to cooperate in a grievance investigation concerning five additional client complaints.

An interim suspension was ordered and a second set of charges was filed

With respect to the sole charge of the petition filed in August 2020, respondent admits that, in late 2018, he was retained to represent a client in a criminal matter. Respondent admits that, on or about April 20, 2019, while the criminal matter was pending, he engaged in a series of text messages with the client whereby respondent sent to the client four unsolicited images of his genitalia. Respondent admits that, after the client filed a grievance complaint, respondent asserted during the investigation that he mistakenly believed he had been exchanging text messages with a friend or acquaintance who lives in Florida. Respondent admits, however, that the series of text messages between respondent and the client contain numerous references to the personal circumstances of the client, without any indication that respondent believed he was corresponding with a person other than the client.

The court noted prior discipline

we have considered that, following entry of this Court’s order of interim suspension in September 2020, the Court has twice found respondent guilty of criminal contempt of court for holding himself out as an attorney, practicing law, and accepting legal fees from clients in disregard of the lawful mandates set forth in the order of interim suspension. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred.

(Mike Frisch)