A Shield Becomes A Sword
Disbarment has been ordered by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department
The record also supports the Referee’s finding that respondent intentionally misused his escrow account to shield his personal funds from tax authorities (see Matter of Kirschenbaum, 29 AD3d at 102; Matter of Goldstein, 10 AD3d 174 [1st Dept 2004]; Matter of Weinstein, 4 AD3d 29, 33 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 608 [2004]). The Referee’s findings sustaining the other escrow related charges (charges 2, 4-9), namely, misappropriation, commingling, misuse of an attorney escrow account as a personal account, failure to maintain required bookkeeping records, and making cash withdrawals and issuing checks payable to “cash” from an escrow account, are well founded and should be affirmed as well (charges 2, 4-9).
As to sanction, the Referee’s disbarment recommendation should be affirmed because this Court has repeatedly found that, in the absence of extremely unusual mitigating circumstances, which are not present in this case, intentional conversion of client funds mandates disbarment (Matter of Ethridge, 231 AD3d at 129; Matter 5 of Castro, 210 AD3d 107 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Carlos, 192 AD3d 170 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Bernier, 177 AD3d 37 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Ballner, 140 AD3d 115 [1st Dept 2016]). Respondent’s intentional misuse of his escrow account to shield his personal funds from tax authorities, which by itself would warrant a suspension, only adds to the case for his disbarment (Matter of Harper, 192 AD3d 174 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Sieratzki, 186 AD3d 85 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Cassidy, 181 AD3d 51 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Brown, 133 AD3d 7 [1st Dept 2015]; Matter of Goldstein, 10 AD3d at 174).
Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted, respondent should be disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately and until further order of this Court. All concur.
(Mike Frisch)