Sign Language

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department has imposed a two-month suspension

In February 2016, the client retained respondent’s law firm to represent her in a Workers’ Compensation matter (first matter). In or about March 2018, the client agreed to settle the first matter and respondent prepared settlement documents, which he recalled personally delivering to the client. The client did not return the settlement documents, and the first matter was not settled. However, the firm remained her counsel.

In October 2019, the client retained the firm to represent her in a second Workers’ Compensation matter (second matter). Respondent handled the second matter and continued to work on the first matter on behalf of the firm. He failed to adequately inform the client of the status of both pending cases.

In or about September 2020, respondent prepared a claimant release in furtherance of settling the first matter. He signed the client’s name on the form, without her permission to do so, and notarized the signature himself and then submitted it to the New York State Worker’s Compensation Board (WCB) without the client’s approval. On the same day, respondent also prepared a waiver agreement in furtherance of settling the first matter, signed the client’s name and submitted it to the WCB without her permission or approval to do so.

Sanction

The parties agree that the discipline to be imposed upon respondent should be a suspension for a period of two months. Initially, they note that the sanction for notarizing a signature of an individual who did not personally appear before an attorney is generally a public censure (see Matter of Vignola, 218 AD2d 310, 316 [1st Dept 1996]). However, the parties agree that a more serious sanction is warranted in this case because respondent forged his client’s signature, notarized his own forgery, and submitted the document, which he knew to be forged and falsely notarized, to a governmental agency. In support of their request for a two-month suspension, they cite Matter of Chazan (252 AD2d 323, 324-325 [1st Dept 1999]), in which this Court imposed a three-month suspension in a case involving similar misconduct, such as forging the client’s signature, falsely notarizing the forgery, and submitted the forged and falsely notarized document to a governmental agency. They further rely on Matter of Benenati (136 AD3d 108, 110-113 [1st Dept 2015]), in which this Court suspended an attorney for three months for using his administrative assistant’s notary stamp and forging her name as part of the false notarization. The parties contend that the requested sanction of a two-month suspension from the practice of law reflects the balance between the factors in mitigation and aggravation presented in this case.

(Mike Frisch)