Non-Cooperation Draws Interim Suspension

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department has ordered an interim suspension of an attorney

The Attorney Grievance Committee (the Committee) seeks an order pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of the Court, based on his failure to produce bookkeeping records and other documents as repeatedly directed by the Committee, which he is required to maintain under Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 1.15(d); and based on his admission that he took more than the one-third contingency fee in personal injury matters to which he was entitled, and provided financial assistance to clients and failed to explain the details thereof despite the Committee’s request.

Non-cooperation is the basis for the action

While negligent, nonvenal misappropriation is sufficient for the Committee to bring formal charges against respondent under 22 NYCRR 1240.8, it does not rise to the level warranting his interim suspension, nor does respondent’s possible
commingling of client and personal funds in his escrow account and financial assistance to non-pro bono clients (Matter of Spinnell, September 27, 2017 unpub order [M-2272] [interim suspension motion denied where the record evidenced nonvenal misappropriation of escrow funds due to deficient bookkeeping]). Committee later brought formal charges based thereon and attorney was suspended for one year (Matter of Spinnell, 185 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 909 [2021]; see also Matter of Salo, May 4, 2007 unpub order [M-3234] [interim suspension motion denied where record evidenced unintentional misappropriation of lien funds, commingling, and deficient bookkeeping; formal charges later filed and attorney suspended for one year for nonvenal misappropriation of lien funds]; (Matter of Salo, 77 AD3d 30 [1st Dept 2010]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion should be granted to the extent of suspending respondent from the practice of law on the grounds of noncooperation, in accordance with 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3), effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.

(Mike Frisch)