Welcome Back Crockett

Reinstatement after a lengthy period of suspension has been granted by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department

We conclude that respondent has demonstrated her character and fitness, in spite of the seriousness of her professional misconduct (see Matter of Matthews, 187 AD3d  1482, 1484 [3d Dept 2020]), through evidence of her many good works and community engagement efforts during her period of suspension (see Matter of Paragano, 213 AD3d 1023, 1025 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Becker, 202 AD3d 1430, 1431 [3d Dept 2022]). However, upon our referral, the Character and Fitness subcommittee has concluded that, in the absence of a concrete plan for her return to practice after a 10-year absence, respondent has not demonstrated that the public interest would be served by her reinstatement. Although respondent testified at the hearing as to her desire to move to New York City, she provided vague and inconsistent statements at the hearing about whether she would return to practice as a solo practitioner or with a firm, and as to what practice areas she might engage in. Indeed, in her response to the subcommittee report, respondent herself now admits that she did not present a “detailed plan for reentry” at the hearing, and the subcommittee’s conclusion therefore has demonstrable basis in the record before us.

However, we are of the view that respondent has squarely addressed the concerns of the subcommittee in her response to the subcommittee report and has therefore provided sufficient assurances that her reinstatement is in the public’s interest. In particular, respondent has now demonstrated that she has “secured support and a commitment of guidance and mentorship” from two individuals with whom she has longstanding relationships, one of whom is a current member of the New York bar with four decades of experience. Respondent has also professed a commitment to “seek employment where there is strong guidance, mentorship, oversight and hands-on assistance,” and to assist her in this regard, we will require respondent to refrain from all solo practice in New York for at least the first two years following her reinstatement (see Matter of Watson, 230 AD3d 921, 924 [3d Dept 2024]). Subject to this restrictive condition (see also n 3, supra), we grant respondent’s motion and reinstate her to practice, effective immediately.

Misconduct

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994 but was thereafter suspended from practice in this state, for a one-year term, by our August 2014 order (120 AD3d 878 [3d Dept 2014]). Respondent’s suspension arose from an October 2013 petition charging respondent with 10 charges of professional misconduct, including her failure to provide competent representation, her conversion of settlement funds and commingling of her own personal funds with the funds of her client and a litany of escrow account irregularities. Respondent initially conceded that she had engaged in the conduct underlying certain of the charges, and, following a hearing before a Referee, the remaining charges that had been disputed by respondent were ultimately sustained (see id. at 879-880)

(Mike Frisch)