Reciprocal Sanction For Lack Of Diligence And Communication

A reciprocal public censure has been ordered by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department

This matter arose out of respondent’s mishandling of a New Jersey pardon application. On or about July 12, 2021, M.M. retained respondent to file a New Jersey pardon application on his behalf. However, between July 2021 and March 2022, respondent failed to diligently attend to M.M.’s matter and failed to adequately communicate with and keep him reasonably informed regarding the status of his matter.

In March 2022, M.M. filed a civil action against respondent in Pennsylvania stemming from his lack of diligence and failure to communicate. Despite being personally served with the civil complaint, respondent did not appear in the action. In July 2022, M.M. obtained a $2,675.25 default judgment against respondent. Respondent received notice of M.M.’s judgment but failed to appeal or satisfy it until he was under disciplinary investigation.

In April 2024, respondent, represented by counsel, and the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel entered into a joint petition in support of discipline on consent in which respondent admitted that he committed professional misconduct and consented to discipline in the form of a public reprimand. Specifically, respondent admitted that his conduct violated the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (PA RPC), namely: PA RPC rule 1.1 (failure to provide competent representation to a client); PA RPC rule 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client); PA RPC rule 1.4(a)(2) (failure to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished); PA RPC rule 1.4(a)(3) (failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of their matter); PA RPC rule 1.4(a)(4) (failure to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information from the client); PA RPC rule 1.4(c) (failure to inform a new client in writing that the lawyer does not have professional liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the aggregate per year); and PA RPC rule 1.16(d) (failure to take reasonable steps to protect the client’s interests upon termination of representation, such as refunding any advanced payment of fee that has not been earned or incurred).

In New York

Although respondent reported his Pennsylvania discipline to the AGC, he has not appeared in this proceeding. Notwithstanding, none of the enumerated defenses could prevail here, as respondent, who was represented by counsel, freely and voluntarily admitted his misconduct to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The misconduct findings are fully supported by the record and would constitute misconduct in New York in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 1.1(a), 1.3(a), 1.4(a)(2), (3), and (4), and 1.16(e).

(Mike Frisch)