TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF ROBERT G. CROOKS, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Jan. 22, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF ELLEN B. MITCHELL, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Jan. 25, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF FRANK J. PUCCIA, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Jan. 17, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF LEONOR GERONA ROMEO, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Jan. 10, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER P. VAETH, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Jan. 25, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF RAYMOND A. YOX, AN ATTORNEY, RESIGNOR. -- Voluntary resignation accepted and name removed from roll of attorneys (see Matter of Manown, 240 AD2d 83). PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Jan. 22, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

Disciplinary Matters

MATTER OF MARTIN E. EADES, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 20, 1973, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Geneva. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including conversion of client funds and other trust account improprieties. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and a referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the parties executed a stipulation resolving outstanding issues of fact. The hearing was conducted only on matters in mitigation. The Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

    The Referee found that respondent allowed the balance in his attorney trust account to fall below the amount of his clients’ interests, as a result of which a trust account check was dishonored for insufficient funds and respondent was required to resolve the matter by issuing payment on behalf of a client from personal funds. Additionally, respondent admits, and the Referee found, that respondent neglected the matters of three clients and failed to respond to inquiries by the Grievance Committee regarding complaints made by those clients.

    We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent has violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

    DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

    DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;

    DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain client funds in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts;

    DR 9-102 (c) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [4]) - failing to pay or deliver to the client or third person in a prompt manner as requested by the client or third person the funds, securities or other properties in his possession that the client or third person is entitled to receive; and

    DR 9-102 (d) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d] [2]) - failing to maintain a record for special accounts, showing the source of all funds deposited in such accounts, the names of all persons for whom the funds are or were held, the amount and description of such funds, and the names of all persons to whom such funds were disbursed.

    We have considered the matters submitted by respondent in mitigation, including that he has closed his law office and no longer engages in the private practice of law. Additionally, we have considered the finding of the Referee that respondent had no intent to convert client funds to his own use. Respondent, however, has an extensive disciplinary history, a factor noted by the Referee in aggravation of the charges. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for six months and until further order of the Court. PRESENT: MARTOCHE, J.P., LUNN, FAHEY, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. (Filed Feb. 1, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF ALAN D. GOLDSTEIN, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 13, 1970, and formerly maintained an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including misappropriation of client funds. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and a referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Prior to the hearing, the parties executed a stipulation resolving outstanding issues of fact. The Referee filed a report based upon the stipulation, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

    Respondent admits, and the Referee found, that he accepted a legal fee and filing fees from a client to commence an action for breach of contract, failed to deposit the funds into his trust account, failed to commence the action and made misrepresentations to the client regarding the status of the matter.

    Additionally, respondent admits that, in his representation of a client in a criminal matter, he accepted cash from the client’s family to secure a bail bond, that he did not count the cash or provide the family with a receipt, and that he merely gave the cash to a bail bondsman from whom he accepted a receipt for the amount of $3,260. The Referee found, however, that the client’s family had paid the sum of $5,000 to respondent to secure the bond.

    The Referee further found that, while representing a client during the course of a federal criminal investigation, respondent allowed an associate attorney to represent an alleged coconspirator of the client. During the course of the representation, the associate attorney negotiated agreements with federal prosecutors on behalf of the coconspirator that were adverse to the interests of respondent’s client, and the same associate was permitted to appear on behalf of respondent’s client at a postindictment status conference.

        Finally, respondent admits, and the Referee found, that respondent accepted funds from a client for the payment of restitution and, although he had not deposited the funds into his trust account, respondent issued a check drawn against the account in payment of the restitution, thereby misappropriating the funds of other clients.

    We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

    DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

    DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7]) - engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

    DR 5-105 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.24 [b]) - continuing multiple employment if the exercise of independent professional judgment on behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client, or if it would be likely to involve him in representing differing interests, and a disinterested lawyer would not believe that he or she could competently represent the interest of each client and each client did not consent to the representation after full disclosure of the implications of the simultaneous representation and the advantages and risks involved;

    DR 5-105 (d) (22 NYCRR 1200.24 [d]) - while associated with another lawyer in a law firm, knowingly accepting or continuing employment when one of the attorneys, if practicing alone, would be prohibited from doing so;

    DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;

    DR 7-101 (a) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [2]) - intentionally failing to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services;

    DR 7-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.32 [a] [3]) - intentionally prejudicing or damaging a client during the course of the professional relationship;

    DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating client funds;

    DR 9-102 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [1]) - failing to maintain client funds in a special account separate from his business or personal accounts;

    DR 9-102 (b) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [b] [2]) - failing to identify special bank accounts in a proper manner; and

    DR 9-102 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [3]) - failing to maintain complete records of all funds, securities and other properties of a client or third person coming into his possession and to render appropriate accounts to the client or third person regarding them.

    In determining an appropriate sanction, we decline to consider the submission of respondent that he has retired from the practice of law (see Matter of McPhee, ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 9, 2007]). Additionally, we note that respondent has an extensive disciplinary history that includes a prior censure for similar misconduct (Matter of Goldstein, 299 AD2d 32). Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for one year and until further order of the Court. Additionally, we direct respondent to pay restitution in accordance with the order entered herewith. PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., MARTOCHE, SMITH, CENTRA, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. (Filed Feb. 1, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF MARK V. WILLIAMS, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 14, 1988, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Syracuse. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including misappropriation of client funds and other trust account improprieties. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and a referee was appointed to conduct a hearing. Following the hearing, the Referee filed a report, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm. Respondent filed no papers in opposition to the motion and did not appear before this Court on the return date.

    The Referee found, based in part upon respondent’s admissions, that he issued checks drawn against his attorney trust account that were dishonored for insufficient funds, issued checks drawn against the account that were made payable to himself or to cash, made direct cash withdrawals from the account, made unauthorized wire transfers of account funds, and deposited earned fees and personal funds into the account.

    The Referee further found that respondent allowed the balance in his attorney trust account to fall below the amount that should have been maintained on behalf of a client, failed to complete the client’s matter, made misrepresentations to the client regarding the status of the matter and failed to refund the unearned retainer fee to the client. Additionally, the Referee found that respondent, in contravention of a client’s instructions, allowed a check issued by the client to be presented for payment, thereby causing an overdraft in the client’s checking account.

    Finally, the Referee found that respondent failed to comply with attorney registration requirements and failed to cooperate with the investigation of the Grievance Committee.

    We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee and conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

    DR 1-102 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [4]) - engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

    DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5]) - engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

    DR 2-110 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.15 [a] [3]) - failing to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned;

    DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3]) - neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;

    DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [a]) - misappropriating client funds and commingling client funds with personal funds;

        DR 9-102 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [3]) - failing to maintain complete records of all funds, securities and other properties of a client or third person coming into his possession and to render appropriate accounts to the client or third person regarding them;

DR 9-102 (d) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [d] [1]) - failing to maintain required records of bank accounts; and

    DR 9-102 (e) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [e]) - making withdrawals from a special account payable to cash and not to a named payee.

    Additionally, respondent violated Judiciary Law § 468-a and 22 NYCRR 118.1 by failing to comply with attorney registration requirements.

    In determining an appropriate sanction, we have considered the finding of the Referee that respondent failed to present evidence of any factors that would mitigate his misconduct. We note, in this regard, the failure of respondent to respond to the motion filed by the Grievance Committee or to submit for this Court’s consideration any matters in mitigation. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for one year and until further order of this Court. Additionally, we direct respondent to pay restitution in accordance with the order entered herewith. PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., MARTOCHE, SMITH, CENTRA, AND PERADOTTO, JJ. (Filed Feb. 1, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE