TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF DOMENIC J. MIGLIACCIO, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of censure entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 20, 1979, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Buffalo. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct arising from his representation of two estates. 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 pleadings and stipulated facts, which the Grievance Committee moves to confirm.

    Respondent takes issue only with the Referee’s findings and conclusions with respect to charge two, which is directed to respondent’s failure to finalize promptly an estate as he was directed to do in a letter of caution issued by the Grievance Committee.

    With respect to charge one of the petition, respondent does not contest the findings of the Referee that his failure to marshal estate assets and to close the estate in a timely manner resulted in a loss to the estate of dividends paid on two stocks. With respect to charge two, the Referee made findings regarding respondent’s conduct prior to the issuance of the letter of caution, including findings regarding conduct that is not alleged in the petition, and concluded that respondent’s delay in finalizing an estate following the issuance of the letter of caution constituted neglect. Finally, with respect to charge three, the Referee found that respondent failed to respond to inquiries and requests for information made by the Grievance Committee during its investigation.

    We confirm the findings of fact made by the Referee with respect to charges one and three of the petition 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; and

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

    With respect to charge two, respondent contends that the Referee erred in making findings concerning his conduct prior to the issuance of the letter of caution, because the letter of caution was determinative of that conduct. Respondent further contends that the Referee erred in considering conduct that was not alleged in the petition. Finally, respondent contends that his delay in filing an informal closing statement does not, by itself, support the Referee’s conclusion that his conduct constituted neglect.

    We agree. We decline to adopt the findings of the Referee with respect to charge two and we disregard the conclusion, which is advisory only, that respondent’s delay following the issuance of the letter of caution in filing an informal closing statement constituted neglect.

    We have considered in mitigation the numerous letters submitted on behalf of respondent attesting to his good character. Additionally, we have considered respondent’s expression of remorse for his misconduct. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND GORSKI, JJ. (Filed June 6, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF DAVID E. PARKER, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f) and (g). PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND GORSKI, JJ. (Filed May 21, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF EDWIN D. PRICE, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. -- Order of suspension entered pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (f) and (g). PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND GORSKI, JJ. (Filed May 21, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE

MATTER OF BONNIE STRUNK, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. -- Order of censure entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 16, 1972, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Syracuse. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including neglecting client matters. 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 does not dispute the findings of the Referee with respect to the misconduct itself, but she requests that we disaffirm the finding that she failed to establish a connection between her medical problems and the misconduct.

    The Referee found that, following her discharge by two clients, respondent failed to execute and return to new counsel in a prompt manner consent to change attorney forms and the complete files of those clients. The Referee further found that, despite her discharge by the clients, respondent continued to contact one client and that, without the knowledge of the other client, respondent negotiated a settlement on her behalf. Additionally, the Referee found that respondent’s failure to communicate with a client resulted in the filing of a complaint by that client with the Grievance Committee. Finally, the Referee found that respondent failed to respond in a timely manner to inquiries made by an investigator for the Grievance Committee, necessitating the issuance of a subpoena by this Court.

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

    DR 2-110 (b) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.15 [b] [2]) - failing to withdraw from employment when she knows or it is obvious that continued employment will result in violation of a disciplinary rule;

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

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

    We decline to adopt the Referee’s finding that respondent failed to establish a connection between her medical problems and the misconduct. As noted by the Referee, respondent did not seek medical attention until most of the misconduct at issue had occurred. Nevertheless, the testimony of respondent at the hearing before the Referee establishes that, during the relevant time period, she suffered from depression, for which she has sought treatment, and from related symptoms that affected her ability to work. Additionally, in determining an appropriate sanction we have considered the testimony of respondent that her law partner experienced serious health problems during the time period encompassed by the petition, resulted in an overwhelming increase in respondent’s workload. Finally, we have considered respondent’s previously unblemished record. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured. PRESENT: HURLBUTT, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND GORSKI, JJ. (Filed June 6, 2008.)

TOP OF PAGE