Lawyer’s Lawyer Disbarred

The New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department disbarred an attorney whose practice focused on defending lawyers in discipline matters

Respondent was admitted to practice by the First Department in 2002 and most recently maintained a law practice in Manhattan primarily focused upon the defense of other attorneys in professional misconduct matters. In August 2018, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department commenced a sua sponte investigation of respondent’s conduct in connection with his neglectful representation of another attorney in a dishonored check matter before it. Respondent’s file was thereafter transferred to this Court by May 2019 order of the First Department. An additional matter concerning respondent’s allegedly deficient representation of a second disciplinary client was thereafter also transferred to this Court by May). .

Alleging that respondent had been uncooperative in its investigations, petitioner moved for respondent’s interim suspension. Respondent was heard in response to the motion and the Court granted petitioner’s motion and suspended respondent by June 2021 order.

The AGC sought an order for disbarment 

While respondent attempts to argue that his answers are not “eleventh-hour” responses, the record reveals that respondent took no steps to appear before petitioner or provide the required answers to the two client complaints until after petitioner moved to disbar him.

Thus

As to respondent’s arguments that a medical condition impeded his ability to respond to petitioner’s inquiries, Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 (b) examines whether the respondent “failed to respond or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension.” Respondent has not offered any showing that he attempted to cooperate with petitioner’s investigation of the two client complaints during the relevant time frame following our confirmation of his interim suspension in October 2022; thus, his medical defense does not sufficiently rebut petitioner’s assertion on this point. Accordingly, we grant petitioner’s motion to disbar respondent 2020 First Department order.

(Mike Frisch)