Third Time A Charm (With Conditions)

The New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department has granted with conditions a petition for reinstatement

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994. In October 2014, however, respondent was suspended from practice for two years in this state (121 AD3d 1158 [3d Dept 2014]) upon sustained allegations that he had, among other things, engaged in a conflict of interest during his representation of an elderly and vulnerable relative of his former life partner. Respondent has since twice unsuccessfully moved this Court for his reinstatement (188 AD3d 1437 [3d Dept 2020]; 206 AD3d 1132 [3d Dept 2022]). Respondent now again moves for his reinstatement by motion marked returnable July 8, 2024. Petitioner has been heard in response to his reinstatement motion and opposes same.

Basis for suspension

The subject client was the uncle of respondent’s significant other (see 121 AD3d at 1158). Respondent thereafter appeared before a Referee who found the testimony of respondent, as well as that of his significant other, to not be credible and that his acts involved “stupidity by respondent and [his significant other] with just a dash of venality thrown in for good measure.” The Referee further found that “respondent’s behavior preyed upon an aged, infirm man.” This Court thereafter confirmed the Referee’s finding, sustaining all five charges and suspending respondent for a period of two years.

Eligible for consideration

Initially, we find that respondent has met the threshold procedural requirements, inasmuch as he properly submitted a sworn affidavit in the form of appendix C, an affidavit of compliance and proof of his successful passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam. As such, we turn our attention to his substantive showing and an assessment of respondent’s character and fitness as well as the public’s interest in his reinstatement.

Post suspension conduct

As to respondent’s conduct following this Court’s suspension, respondent has demonstrated that he has worked consistently as a principal for a management consulting business since 2015 as well as in real estate since 2016. To this end, the real estate broker with whom he associates describes respondent as “a trustworthy and honest member of society, with a reputation for truth and veracity.” Based on these submissions, we find that “respondent has genuinely expressed remorse for his misconduct, understands the impact his misconduct had on his client and on his practice of law, and has further isolated the factors that led to his misconduct”

Conditions

we condition respondent’s reinstatement upon him (1) not engaging in the solo practice of law, opening his own law practice or becoming a partner in any law practice in the State of New York; (2) proposing to the Court, within 30 days of this decision, an attorney in good standing, with no less than five years of practice in New York State, to serve as his qualified mentor and thereafter submit quarterly reports to the Court, on notice to petitioner; and (3) refraining from practice within the areas of wills and estate planning. We impose these conditions for a period of three years, whereupon respondent may move this Court to terminate the foregoing conditions.

(Mike Frisch)