Threats Defense Rejected

The New York Appellate Division for the Fourth Judicial Department as disbarred an attorney for his participation in a fraudulent scheme

With respect to the factual allegations of the petition, the Referee found that, in or around October 2018, respondent agreed to represent a client whose father had been incapacitated by a stroke in late September 2018. The Referee found that before meeting with respondent, the client had arranged for another attorney to prepare quitclaim deeds and related documents transferring ownership of four properties owned by the father to the client. The Referee found that the client received the unsigned deeds on or about October 9, 2018, after which respondent notarized the father’s forged signature on two of the deeds and observed the client notarize the father’s forged signature on the other two deeds using respondent’s notary stamp. The Referee found that all of those notarizations were backdated to September 20, 2017. The Referee further found that, in midOctober 2018, respondent agreed to represent the client in an effort to sell two of the properties using the fraudulent deeds. In relation to one of those transactions, respondent prepared and notarized an affidavit wherein the client attested that the deed in question had been executed by the father on September 20, 2017, but that the client had inadvertently neglected to file the deed with the county clerk. The Referee further found that, in late October 2018, respondent commenced a proceeding on behalf of the client, pursuant to article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, seeking to appoint the client as guardian for his incapacitated father. The court presiding over the article 81 proceeding appointed Mental Hygiene Legal Services (MHLS) as court evaluator, and MHLS subsequently advised the court that two of the father’s properties had been listed for sale while the father was incapacitated. The Referee found that respondent thereafter sent to MHLS a copy of a purported durable power of attorney designating respondent’s client as agent for the client’s father. The Referee further found that the power of attorney contained the father’s forged signature, which had been notarized by respondent and was backdated to September 20, 2017. The Referee found that, in November 2018, another attorney was substituted for respondent as counsel for the client in the article 81 proceeding. Replacement counsel thereafter filed the fraudulent power of attorney with the county clerk, unaware that the document had been forged and falsely notarized by respondent. The Referee also found that respondent falsely advised another attorney, who was representing the client’s brother in certain court proceedings, that respondent had met with the father in person in September 2017 and that the deeds had been executed by the father at that time and notarized by respondent.

Respondent’s proferred mitigation/explanation

During the mitigation hearing before the Referee, respondent testified that he participated in the fraudulent scheme set forth in the stipulation of the parties because the client beat him and threatened him with a gun. Respondent further testified that he continued to assist the client and never disclosed the fraud to the appropriate authorities because the client actively threatened respondent and his family for several years after the deeds were forged. However, the Referee found that respondent’s testimony in mitigation lacked credibility, particularly given its self-interested nature and the lack of any evidence corroborating the testimony with regard to threats or physical violence, such as phone records, photographs, videos, medical records, or police reports.

Sanction

In determining an appropriate sanction, we have considered the numerous aggravating factors established by the record, including that respondent knowingly and intentionally made false statements and created or used fabricated documents in relation to several legal transactions or proceedings, in direct contravention of his ethical obligations as an attorney and officer of the court…

We conclude that respondent has demonstrated that he is unfit to practice law. Accordingly, respondent should be disbarred.

(Mike Frisch)