Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M42564

S/nl

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

ANITA R. FLORIO

HOWARD MILLER

ROBERT W. SCHMIDT

THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.

2006-01167 In the Matter of Randy Scott Steinhauser, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Randy Scott Steinhauser, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2212819)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for an order: (1) suspending the respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) based upon his professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest; (2) authorizing the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon the allegations of misconduct set forth in its verified petition dated March 13, 2006; and (3) referring any issues raised by the petition and any answer interposed thereto to a Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 1, 1989.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and there being no papers submitted in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), the respondent Randy Scott Steinhauser is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this court, the respondent, Randy Scott Steinhauser, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law of its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against Randy Scott Steinhauser, based on the petition dated March 13, 2006; and it is further,

ORDERED that Rita E. Adler, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, 150 Motor Parkway, Suite 102, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, the respondent shall serve an answer upon the petitioner and the Special Referee, and shall file the original answer in the office of the Clerk of this court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Vincent Pizzuto, a retired Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, 786 Lamont Avenue, Staten Island, N.Y. 10312, as Special Referee to hear and report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing on the submission of post-hearing memoranda, along with the charges previously referred to him; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Randy Scott Steinhauser, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f).

We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation into complaints of professional misconduct against him.

The respondent was retained by Alex Virella, who was incarcerated, to represent him in pending criminal matters. Mr. Virella asked the respondent to withdraw funds from Virella's bank account with which to post his bail. The respondent withdrew the sum of $14,200 from the account and posted the $10,000 bail. The bail was exonerated on or about June 18, 2004, and the court released the sum of $9,700 to the respondent. The respondent failed to return this sum to his client. The Grievance Committee referred the Virella complaint to the Suffolk County Bar Association for investigation on or about August 11, 2004.

The second complaint alleges that the respondent was retained by the family of Robert Thompson to represent him at sentencing and to prosecute an appeal. The respondent failed to prosecute the appeal.

By letter dated January 13, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer to the Thompson complaint within 15 days. The respondent failed to comply. By certified letter dated February 18, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer within 10 days. Although that letter was delivered on February 22, 2005, the respondent failed to comply.

By certified letter dated March 10, 2005, the Grievance Committee demanded the respondent's answer to the Thompson complaint within 5 days and warned that remedial action would ensue should he fail to cooperate. Although that letter was delivered on March 11, 2005, the respondent failed to comply.

Joseph Savino, Esq., filed a complaint alleging that a check drawn on the respondent's JP Morgan Chase Bank attorney trust account in the amount of $3,476.84, payable to the complainant's law firm, was dishonored due to insufficient funds. By letter dated February 25, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested that the respondent submit a written explanation along with specified bookkeeping records within 20 days. The Grievance Committee advised that an unexcused failure to respond may be deemed professional misconduct independent of the underlying investigation. The respondent failed to comply.

On March 31, 2005, the respondent telephoned Grievance Counsel and stated that he would submit written answers to the Thompson and Savino complaints by April 15, 2005. By letter dated March 31, 2005, the respondent confirmed that he had been granted the extension of time due to "very serious recent events" concerning his father. The respondent failed to comply.

On April 18, 2005, the respondent telephoned Grievance Counsel and stated that written answers to the Thompson and Savino complaints had been mailed that date via overnight delivery. On April 19, 2005,Grievance Counsel left a message informing the respondent that those answers had not been received and requesting that he contact the Grievance Committee. The respondent failed to do so.

By certified letters dated April 22, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested that the respondent submit answers to the Thompson and Savino complaints within 5 days. Although both letters were delivered on April 25, 2005, the respondent failed to comply.

By letter dated April 29, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested that the respondent submit an answer within 15 days to a complaint by Robert Whittle alleging that the respondent had neglected his action against the White Plains Police Department. The respondent failed to do so. On May 16, 2005, the respondent left a message for Grievance Counsel that his answers to the Savino, Thompson, and Whittle complaints would be "forthcoming." The respondent still failed to submit answers.

On or about June 9, 2005, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Lucia Scott who had retained the respondent to represent Chauncy Ramos in his appeal from a criminal conviction. The respondent allegedly neglected that matter and failed to return documents related to the legal matter and the unused portion of the $10,000 retainer. By letter dated June 23, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer to the Scott complaint within 15 days. The respondent failed to comply.

By letter dated June 22, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested that the respondent submit an answer within 15 days to a complaint by Alex Rosa which alleged that the respondent had neglected his criminal matter. The respondent failed to do so.

Pursuant to judicial subpoenas served on June 16, 2005, the respondent was directed to appear at the Grievance Committee's offices on June 28, 2005, and to produce copies of all of his records relating to the Thompson, Savino, and Whittle complaints. Pursuant to those subpoenas, the respondent was examined under oath on June 28, 2005, and provided verbal answers to those complaints as well as certain records relating to his attorney trust account. He consented to submit records relating to the Savino complaint and written answers to the three named complaints as well as to the Scott and Rosa complaints, which were received by the Grievance Committee after service of the subpoenas, by August 12, 2005. The respondent failed to comply.

On or about August 3, 2005, the Suffolk County Bar Association returned the Virella matter to the district Grievance Committee. The Suffolk County Bar Association concluded that the respondent did not engage in unethical conduct but advised him to return to Mr. Virella "excess funds" of $8,125.

Based upon the respondent's failure to comply with the request of the Suffolk County Bar Association to provide documentation relating to his legal fee, the district Grievance Committee advised the respondent that it was reopening its investigation. By letter dated August 18, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer to the Virella complaint within 15 days. The respondent failed to comply.

On August 18, 2005, the respondent telephoned Grievance Counsel and requested additional time to submit written answers to the Thompson, Savino, Whittle, Scott, and Rosa complaints. He was granted an extension to September 2, 2005. The respondent again failed to comply.

By certified letter dated September 16, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer to the Virella complaint within 10 days and reminded him that failure to cooperate with its investigation constitutes professional misconduct independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. Although that letter was delivered on September 20, 2005, the respondent still failed to comply.

Pursuant to judicial subpoenas served on September 7, 2005, the respondent was directed to appear at the Grievance Committee's offices on September 16, 2005, and to produce records relating to the five enumerated complaints. The respondent failed to appear as directed.

On or about September 26, 2005, the Grievance Committee received a complaint by Henry Soto, Jr., alleging that the respondent neglected his criminal matter. By letter dated October 6, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer within 15 days. The respondent failed to comply.

By certified letter dated November 7, 2005, the Grievance Committee demanded the respondent's answer to the Virella complaint within 5 days and advised him that section 691.4(l) of the rules of the Appellate Division, Second Department (22 NYCRR 691.4[l]) authorizes the Grievance Committee to move to suspend any attorney who fails to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation. Although that letter was delivered on November 8, 2005, the respondent still failed to comply.

By certified letter dated November 9, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested the respondent's answer to the Soto complaint within 10 days and reminded him that his failure to cooperate constitutes professional misconduct independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. The respondent still failed to comply.

By certified letter dated November 18, 2005, the Grievance Committee requested that respondent submit an answer to the Thompson, Savino, Whittle, Scott, and Rosa complaints within five days and again reminded him that the Court Rules authorize the Grievance Committee to move to suspend an attorney who fails to cooperate. Although that letter was delivered on November 22, 2005, the respondent still failed to comply.

By facsimile dated December 5, 2005, the respondent advised Grievance Counsel that he would submit answers to the Thompson, Whittle, Rosa, Soto, and Virella complaints by December 6, 2005, and to the Scott and Savino complaints by December 7, 2005. To date, he has failed to submit answers to any of the seven complaints against him.

The Grievance Committee personally served the respondent with the Order to Show Cause and petition on March 22, 2006, and the respondent signed an acknowledgment of service on that date. The verified petition contains 25 charges of professional misconduct predicated upon the foregoing allegations.

The Order to Show Cause was originally returnable on April 21, 2006. The respondent sought and was granted adjournments of his time to respond to May 5, 2006, and May 10, 2006. To date, no response has been submitted.

Based on the established pattern of failing to cooperate, it is submitted that the respondent constitutes an immediate threat to the public interest. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), and the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him.

PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, MILLER, SCHMIDT and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court