The Gold Standard

An attorney admitted in 1966 had his resignation accepted by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1966 and was most recently a principal of E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County. In January 2019, a dishonored check report was issued concerning an escrow account associated with respondent’s former firm, E. Stewart Jones PLLC. An investigation by petitioner – including a seven-year audit of the relevant escrow account – ensued and, by petition of charges, petitioner has alleged nine charges of professional misconduct by respondent, including allegations of misappropriation of client funds, commingling, improper bookkeeping and other conduct in violation of 15 specific Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent was heard in response to the petition by answer wherein respondent has admitted to engaging in all of the charged conduct.

Resignation

Here, although respondent’s attestation as to the specific nature of the charges against him omits reference to certain specific charges, we find that respondent has adequately admitted to the entirety of the charged misconduct in prior filings with this Court – remedying any apparent deficiency in his current motion papers. Similarly, we find that respondent’s failure to specifically list the names of affected persons whose money was willfully misappropriated, as well as the monetary amount of such misappropriations, is also cured by prior filings wherein respondent has admitted to the charged misconduct. Accordingly, given respondent’s attestation that his resignation is tendered voluntarily and his acknowledgments that he cannot successfully defend against the charges and that he understands his resignation will result in an order of disbarment, we accept his disciplinary resignation and, effective immediately, disbar him from the practice of law and order his name to be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law

Dissent

Respondent also has repaid all client funds that he admitted to misappropriating. Perhaps most significantly, we note respondent’s considerable contributions to the legal community as well as his philanthropic efforts throughout his lengthy professional career (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [g]). Moreover, in respondent’s 58 years of practice in this state, he has had no prior discipline and is considered as “the gold standard for the local bar” by another prominent local lawyer who has submitted papers in support of respondent…

While we do not condone nor minimize the seriousness of respondent’s conduct, when taking the mitigating factors into account in formulating a sanction, we see this as an opportunity not only to balance, but also acknowledge, reinforce and encourage the meaningful contributions some attorneys make to the legal community over the course of their careers, while at the same time holding the profession accountable to the public.

(Mike Frisch)