Spam From The Bar

An interim suspension for non-cooperation with a bar investigation and admissions made under oath has been ordered by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department

Turning, first, to AGC’s contention that respondent has failed to comply with its lawful demands, respondent’s responsive submission did not offer any excuse for her failures in this regard, although she does cite certain technological issues – namely AGC’s correspondence being routed to her spam folder – as well as her significant case load. While we appreciate that technological issues can compound the already stressful practice of law, we note that respondent’s participation at the examination under oath – wherein she confirmed her email address and was advised that AGC would seek additional information from her following the examination – should have put her on notice that AGC would continue to contact her via email. Accordingly, her contentions that AGC failed to take additional steps to notify her of its request for additional information following the examination under oath via nonelectronic means falls flat. Most significantly, however, despite becoming fully aware of the scope and breadth of AGC’s requests as a consequence of the instant motion and being provided with an additional 60 days to provide AGC with the information and records it seeks, respondent has still not supplied the requested information. In providing respondent with this additional time, we notified her that this was her final opportunity to comply with AGC’s requests for information and reiterated that her failure to satisfy these directives might result in her interim suspension from practice until further order of this Court. Inasmuch as AGC advises that respondent has not satisfied our directives, we conclude that she has failed to comply with the lawful demands of AGC 

Conclusion

Even accepting that respondent has, in her own time, taken steps to continue managing the estate that was the subject of the executor’s complaint, her testimony under oath and the documentary record definitively establish that she neglected the estate – and its assets – entrusted to her (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.3 [b]) and failed to keep the executor reasonably informed of Surrogate’s Court’s directives and requirements (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.4 [a] [3]). Given her admissions under oath, as well as her failure to comply with AGC’s lawful demands, as discussed above, we grant AGC’s motion and suspend respondent on an interim basis (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a] [2], [3], [5]).

(Mike Frisch)