No Guarantee

New York is one jurisdiction that takes the obligation to cooperate with a bar investigation seriously. 

The Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department has ordered disbarment of an attorney for not responding to Grievance Committee demands, rejecting the request to not take such action

Respondent by her attorney opposes the motion and states that she was waiting to be contacted by the Committee and seeks more time to appear and provide the documentation. However, during this six-month period she never attempted to contact the Committee and never provided the documentation that the committee requested from her. Despite her counsel’s statements that respondent now understands this is a serious matter and is committed to complying with the Committee’s requests, given her history, there is no guarantee that she will provide copies of her bank records and attorney escrow account. Furthermore, she could have provided copies of the requested records as exhibits to her opposition papers. Respondent’s attempt to seek additional time while transferring the onus for her failure to respond or appear within six months from the date of suspension onto the Committee for failure to contact her, is unavailing.
Her counsel’s conclusory and vague suggestion that he believes she understands this is a serious matter and is committed to complying, amounts to no more than a promise of future cooperation. There is no evidence given respondent’s history of substantial delay and failure to comply with the Committee’s inquiries as to the $79,000 at issue, which already resulted in her suspension, that providing her additional time would result in the retrieval of relevant documents or result in adifferent outcome (see Matter of Vinnitsky, 217 AD3d 76, 77-78 [1st Dept 2023]; Matter of Rosenbaum, 161 AD3d 91, 93-94 [1st Dept 2018]; Matter of Evans, 154 AD3d 187 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Chadi, 243 AD2d 78, 79 [1st Dept 1998]).

Accordingly, inasmuch as at least six months have elapsed since this Court’s January 4 ,2024 suspension order, and respondent has neither responded nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings, the Committee’s motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) should be granted and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys in the State of New York, effective immediately

The investigation

The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) sought an order pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(1), (3), and (5), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law predicated on allegations that she converted nearly $79,000 that had been tendered to her in her capacity as a referee in a foreclosure action. The Committee’s motion was based on respondent’s failure to comply with the Committee’s investigation for about a year and a half by: (1) not appearing for an examination under oath as directed by judicial subpoena; (2) failing to provide identifying information, and statements for her attorney escrow account; and (3) failing to provide bank records.

(Mike Frisch)