Civil Service

A criminal conviction drew a three year suspension from the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department

As reflected in the criminal charges, from April 6, 2017, through November 26, 2019, the respondent was the General Counsel for the Civil Service Commission (hereinafter CSC) with an office located at 1 Centre Street in New York County. On 30 different dates from April 6, 2017, through November 26, 2019, the respondent submitted 29 timesheets stating that she was physically present at her CSC office and worked when she did not in fact go to the CSC office. She filed the timesheets electronically and certified that they “correctly represent[ ] [her] attendance and activities for the  week indicated.” On 26 of the 30 dates, the respondent sent either an email or a text message to her CSC colleagues advising that she would be out of the office, but she claimed on her timesheets that she had worked that day. According to the commissioner of the CSC, the respondent did not have permission or authority to work from home. The amount stolen in wages for those 30 dates (based on hours claimed and her pay rate) was determined to be $15,054.81.

Sanction

The respondent testified that when confronted by an assistant district attorney with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office with the allegation that she had filed false timesheets, she immediately admitted everything. She explained that the misconduct occurred during a period when she was experiencing various severe and chronic health issues which made her commute to her office difficult. The respondent admitted that during the period from April 6, 2017, through November 26, 2019, she submitted false timesheets, but while she was not physically in her office, the respondent claimed that she had worked from home. During cross-examination, the respondent admitted that, formerly, in her role as a government attorney, she had investigated employees who had falsified documents to government agencies.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, we have considered in mitigation, the respondent’s unblemished disciplinary record; expressed remorse; admission of wrongdoing; evidence of her good character; and her cooperation with the Grievance Committee. In aggravation, we have considered that the respondent’s misconduct occurred in her capacity as a public servant. As a result of her misconduct, the respondent violated the public’s trust, which lessens public confidence in the legal profession. We have also considered, in aggravation, the respondent’s substantial experience in law, particularly in government service including her past experience investigating fraud and corruption for the City of New York; and that her conduct was not isolated in that she submitted false timesheets over the span of approximately 30 months.

Although initially charged with felonies, Respondent pled to a misdemeanor and thus avoided automatic disbarment. (Mike Frisch)