Exceeding The Scope

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department accepted the resignation of an attorney admitted as an in-house counsel

Respondent’s affidavit in support of her motion to resign conforms to the format set forth in Appendix A to 22 NYCRR §1240.10. She attests that she is a member in good standing of the bar of the State of Maharashtra and Goa, India, since 2012. She is not admitted to practice in any other jurisdiction in this State or in the United States, and as in-house counsel in the State of New York, she is only authorized to practice law in this state to the extent permitted by 22 NYCRR Part 522. Respondent attests that she is the subject of an investigation by the AGC involving multiple allegations of professional misconduct on her part, that she exceeded the scope of legal services she is authorized to perform as a registered in-house counsel under 22 NYCRR Part 522, and that she cannot successfully defend against these allegations.

The allegations include at least the following acts of professional misconduct: In or about April or May 2022 respondent held herself out as a New York attorney to client #1 and represented that she was qualified to represent his interests in relation to a matter pending in the District of Ohio with the assistance of local counsel. Respondent was paid a $15,000 legal fee and was entrusted with an additional $70,000 to be held on the client’s behalf in an attorney escrow account, which funds respondent did not properly segregate, and maintained in a non-attorney trust account. Respondent inappropriately commingled and withdrew those funds without the client’s knowledge, permission, or authority, and used them for her own interests. She also improperly conditioned the return of those funds on receipt of a signed release of liability against herself and others. Further, in response to the AGC’s investigation, respondent provided misleading testimony concerning her handling of those funds and repayment to the client;

In or about May and August 2022, respondent represented client #2 in a claim for personal injuries. As an in-house counsel respondent was aware, or should have been aware, that she could only represent the client pro bono and under the supervision of a New York attorney. Respondent neglected the client’s matter by failing to communicate, or respond to the client’s reasonable requests for information about the status of the case;

In or about August and November 2022 respondent represented client #3 pursuant to a military pro bono retainer agreement, in a custody/visitation and order of protection proceeding pending in Family Court, Onondaga County. Respondent did not explain to the client that she was a foreign attorney registered in New York only as an inhouse counsel. She neglected the matter by failing to make the requisite filings and applications. She misrepresented to the client that such filings and applications were made, and that funds the client paid her were used for said filings. Respondent admits that she owes the client $4,965;

In or about February and May 2023, respondent appeared as counsel pro bono for an indicted defendant and was found, by order of Supreme Court, Kings County Criminal Term, to have failed to provide the court with adequate notice that she was a registered in-house counsel and not admitted to practice in New York;

In or about June and November 2023 respondent was retained by client #4 to recover a stolen vehicle, improperly collected a $3,500 legal fee, and did not advise the client that she would not be representing her as an attorney. She also failed to return the fee in a timely manner despite the client’s demand.

Respondent attests that she cannot successfully defend herself against any of the allegations of professional misconduct, and that her resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered with full awareness of the consequences, including that this Court’s acceptance and approval shall “result in the entry of an order of disbarment striking her name as in-house counsel.”

The court

the motion should be granted, respondent’s resignation accepted, and her registration as in-house counsel in the State of New York terminated, effective nunc pro tunc to the September 12, 2024, the date of the affidavit. In addition, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(6-a), respondent should be directed to make restitution to client #1 in the amount of $85,000 and to client #3 in the amount of $4,965.