When In Rome

The New York Appellate Division for the Fourth Judicial Department imposed a suspension of two years and until further order based on three counts of misconduct.

A client in a custody matter

Respondent admits that, in August 2018, he sent to the client sexually explicit text messages and, in early September 2018, he directed the client to come to his home, at which time he served her an alcoholic beverage and engaged in sexual relations with her. Respondent admits that, the following day, he invited the client to his home to engage in additional sexual relations, but the client declined and requested that respondent turn over the case file for her legal matter. Respondent admits that, in response to the client’s request, he advised her that he would turn over the file only after he received a court order relieving him as counsel. Respondent admits that, shortly thereafter, the court presiding over the client’s legal matter granted the client’s application for an order of protection directing respondent to refrain from having contact with the client.

His own child support obligations

Respondent admits that he was taken into custody on February 19, 2019, and was not released until the following day upon his payment of child support arrears in the total amount of $66,853.36.

A decision in the domestic case by the New York Supreme Court is linked here

The father further contends that the court erred in imposing a sanction pursuant to CPLR 3126 precluding him from introducing evidence at trial of the income he generated from his law firm. The court imposed that sanction only after the father violated a discovery order compelling production of his law firm’s business ledgers, he was held in criminal contempt as a result of that violation, and he failed to produce those documents after being afforded an opportunity to purge himself of contempt. Based on the father’s willful failure to disclose the business ledgers, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a preclusion sanction (see CPLR 3126[2] ; Matter of Duma v. Edgar , 58 A.D.3d 1085, 1086, 873 N.Y.S.2d 747 [3d Dept. 2009] ; see generally Perry v. Town of Geneva , 64 A.D.3d 1225, 1226, 882 N.Y.S.2d 626 [4th Dept. 2009] ). We also reject the father’s contention that the mother was not entitled to disclosure of the business ledgers because he produced over 1,800 pages of financial documents. The mother was entitled to disclosure of the business ledgers because the court ordered that disclosure following its proper determination that those ledgers were relevant to her claims for maintenance, child support, and attorney’s fees.

The third count involved trust account shortfalls. (Mike Frisch)