When The Bedbugs Bite
The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed reciprocal discipline of disbarment based on sanctions imposed in Virginia
By contingency fee agreement signed September 13, 2018, the respondent represented Renee Sallit and her family in a claim against a rental company and the owner of a rental home. Sallit and her family rented a vacation home in Virginia Beach in July 2018. The house was infested with bedbugs and several family members were bitten. After failing to get a full refund from the rental company, Sallit hired the respondent to represent her and her family members in making a claim.
Sallit stated that communication from the respondent was poor from the beginning of the representation and that “about 75% of the time” the respondent failed to timely respond to Sallit’s communication attempts. The respondent did not communicate with Sallit from April 16, 2019, to May 16, 2019. On August 19, 2019, Sallit sent a text message to the respondent, to which the respondent replied one month later on September 19, 2019.
On October 9, 2019, the respondent filed a complaint on behalf of Sallit and her family in Richmond Circuit Court. The complaint sought $5 million in relief from the defendants, the property owner, Evan Reiter, and the rental company, Sandbridge Blue LLC. On November 10, 2020, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach by agreement of the parties.
On July 6, 2021, Sallit sent a text message to the respondent to ask if she needed to be present at an upcoming August 2, 2021 hearing. The respondent replied that Sallit did not need to attend and that only the lawyers needed to be there. The respondent did not appear at the August 2, 2021 hearing, and pursuant to the respondent’s instructions, Sallit did not appear. By final order entered August 17, 2021, the case was dismissed due to the respondent’s failure to appear.
On September 16, 2021, the respondent filed a Notice of Appeal in the Circuit Court for the City of Virginia Beach, but did not file a Petition for Appeal with the Supreme Court of Virginia.
In Virginia
The [Virginia State Bar Disciplinary] Board was particularly troubled by the harm caused to Sallit by the respondent’s conduct. The respondent abandoned Sallit’s case and denied her a day in court and compensation for her alleged injuries. The respondent also did not cooperate and actually obstructed the VSB’s investigation of his conduct.
Based upon the respondent’s misconduct, the nature of that misconduct, and the harm to the client, the VSB, and the public, the Board determined that the appropriate sanction to protect the public and the integrity of the VSB was the revocation of the respondent’s license to practice law, as any lesser sanction would be a disservice to the Virginia legal community and the public at large.
By Memorandum Order of Revocation entered June 12, 2023, the Board revoked the respondent’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia, effective May 19, 2023.
In addition to revoking the respondent’s license to practice law for the misconduct underlying Sallit’s complaint, the Board issued a separate order entered June 14, 2023, again revoking the respondent’s license to practice law for his failure to comply with the Interim Suspension Order dated November 1, 2022.
The respondent did not notify this [New York] Court or the Grievance Committee of the Virginia orders of discipline as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d).
(Mike Frisch)