Over 100 Communications With Represented Former Client

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department has disbarred an attorney who had defaulted on charges of misconduct

The petition contains six charges of professional misconduct alleging, inter alia, that the respondent engaged in communications with a party known to be represented by counsel concerning the subject of the representation, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer by sending inappropriate and unsolicited communications, approximately 18 emails and 114 text messages between October 2020 and November 2023, with a former client with whom the respondent was involved in a fee dispute litigation and who the respondent knew to be represented by counsel, in violation of rules 4.2(c) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). The petition further alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigation into allegations of the respondent’s professional misconduct, and his failure to appear to give sworn testimony and produce documents pursuant to a judicial subpoena, in violation of rule 8.4(d) and (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The notice of petition directed the respondent to file his answer to the petition within 20 days after service upon him of the petition. To date, the respondent has not filed an answer to the petition, as directed, nor requested additional time in which to do so.

The Grievance Committee now moves to deem the charges against the respondent established based upon his default and to impose such discipline upon him as this Court deems appropriate. Although the motion papers were served upon the respondent on July 2, 2024, by electronic mail, certified mail, and first-class mail, he has neither opposed the motion nor interposed any response thereto.

Accordingly, the Grievance Committee’s motion to deem the charges against the respondent established based upon his default is granted, the charges in the petition dated May 6, 2024, are deemed established, and, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.

(Mike Frisch)