Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M92830

E/cb

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

2009-00334 In the Matter of Paulette R. Bainbridge, admitted as Paulette Rose Bainbridge, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Paulette R. Bainbridge, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3930211)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District for an order: (1) suspending the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and/or (ii) upon a finding that she is guilty of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that she has failed to submit written answers to two complaints of professional misconduct within 10 days of a demand for such an answer and/or has made substantial admissions under oath; (2) authorizing it to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on a petition dated May 15, 2009; (3) directing the respondent to submit an answer within 20 days; and (4) directing that a hearing be held before a Special Referee with respect to the charges set forth in the petition. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on June 20, 2001, under the name Paulette Rose Bainbridge.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and no papers having been submitted in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (ii), the respondent, Paulette R. Bainbridge, admitted as Paulette Rose Bainbridge, 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, Paulette R. Bainbridge, admitted as Paulette Rose Bainbridge, 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, Paulette R. Bainbridge, admitted as Paulette Rose Bainbridge, 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 or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against Paulette R. Bainbridge, admitted as Paulette Rose Bainbridge, based on the petition dated May 15, 2009; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee shall serve the petition upon the Special Referee and file the original petition in the office of the Clerk of this court within 20 days after receipt of a copy of this order on motion; and it is further,

ORDERED that Gary L. Casella, Chief Counsel, Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, 399 Knollwood Road, Suite 200, White Plains, N.Y. 10603, 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 order, the respondent, Paulette R. Bainbridge, admitted as Paulette Rose Bainbridge, shall serve an answer upon the petitioner and the Special Referee, and shall file the original answer with this court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the petition and any answer are referred to the Honorable Jerome M. Becker, a former Judge of the Criminal and Family Courts, c/o Douglas Becker, Esq., Joseph P. Day Co., 9 East 40th Street, 8th floor, New York, N.Y. 10016, as Special Referee to hear and report, together with his finding on the issues, and to submit a report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Paulette R. Bainbridge, admitted as Paulette Rose Bainbridge, 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 her 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 her failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District and substantial admissions under oath.

The complaint by Pearl Bryan emanates from the respondent's alleged neglect of a medical malpractice matter for which she was retained to represent Lloyd O'Connor. Mr. O'Connor died in November 2006 and Bryan was appointed executrix of his estate. By letter dated September 14, 2008, the respondent advised Bryan that in or about May 2008, a motion was drafted requesting that the executrix of the O'Connor estate be substituted as plaintiff and that a wrongful death cause of action be added to the summons and complaint. The respondent stated that the motion had been filed in the Supreme Court and that she was awaiting a ruling. Upon checking with the Queens County Clerk, the Grievance Committee's investigator was informed that the respondent had filed a summons and complaint on July 13, 2006, but that there has been no activity since then. Bryan has not heard from the respondent since the September 2008 letter and has been unsuccessful in her many attempts to reach the respondent.

Lorna S. Goulbourne alleges that the respondent caused her to lose a $10,000 deposit on the prospective purchase of a house because the respondent did not extend the contract and failed to give notice of its cancellation. Ms. Goulbourne had been trying to reach the respondent for four months without success and in November 2008 contacted another attorney who was also unsuccessful in attempting to reach the respondent.

On March 6, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent copies of the Bryan and Goulbourne complaints to the respondent's counsel, advising that failure to respond in a timely manner constituted professional misconduct independent of the merits of the complaints and would be treated accordingly. The respondent failed to submit an answer or request additional time in which to do so.

On March 20, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent second request letters to the respondent's counsel via certified mail. The Grievance Committee directed the respondent to respond within 10 days and advised that the Grievance Committee might move for her interim suspension if she failed to respond. Although counsel signed for the letter on March 23, 2009, the respondent failed to respond or request additional time in which to do so. Although counsel had timely delivered the letters to the respondent, he was unable to reach her.

Complainant Jermaine Ricketts alleged that after he retained the respondent to represent him in a divorce matter and provided her with $505 towards attorneys fees and court fees, the respondent never filed the divorce papers. Additionally, the respondent failed to return his telephone calls after March 24, 2008, and did not respond to a letter from Mr. Ricketts in late May 2008. On July 11, 2008, the Grievance Committee mailed a copy of the Ricketts complaint to the respondent's Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA) registration address, in New Rochelle. That letter was returned by the Post Office as undeliverable and "unable to forward." On July 17, 2008, the Grievance Committee mailed a second copy of the complaint to a law firm address provided by Mr. Ricketts. The respondent failed to respond within 10 days as directed or to request additional time in which to do so.

The Grievance Committee confirmed by telephone that the respondent was associated with a certain law firm and sent a second request letter to the respondent at the firm, via certified mail, on July 30, 2008. Although that letter was delivered on July 31, 2008, the respondent failed to respond or request additional time in which to do so notwithstanding a warning from the Grievance Committee that her failure to respond could result in a motion for her interim suspension, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i).

On September 16, 2008, the respondent appeared at the Grievance Committee's offices pursuant to subpoena and testified with respect to the Ricketts complaint as well as her failure to cooperate. The respondent testified that she attended nursing school in Jamaica and came to the United States in 1985. After attending Pace Law School and gaining admission to the New York State Bar in 2001, she worked first for a Manhattan firm and then opened a part-time practice as a solo practitioner from approximately 2004 to 2006. Since then, she has had an "of counsel" relationship with Young and Bartlett in White Plains. She reviews medical records in connection with medical malpractice cases, assists with drafting pleadings and handles real estate transactions from her home. Although she left a forwarding address after closing her law office, the forwarding order expired. The respondent was unaware of her responsibility to notify OCA of her change of address.

The respondent did not go to the law office very frequently during the summer of 2008. She did not receive the Ricketts complaint until August 2008 when the 10 day period for answering had already expired. She went on a family vacation and took no action to respond to the complaint. Upon returning from vacation, the respondent was overwhelmed with personal matters and still failed to answer. She did not find the second request letter until after she was served with the subpoena.

In mitigation of her failure to cooperate, the respondent testified that she has been struggling for two years to keep her marriage together and was severely depressed as a result. She has been seeing Dr. Zeng at New York Hospital since August 2007.

With respect to the Ricketts complaint, the respondent testified that in February 2008, Mr. Ricketts was served with a summons and complaint for child support. She consulted with him regarding that issue but, by agreement, she did not go to court with him. She charged him $275 but they did not execute a retainer agreement. Mr. Ricketts planned to pay child support arrears from his tax refund and then file for divorce. He paid the filing fees but still owes the respondent $500 for the divorce and $75 for the child support matter. The respondent prepared divorce papers on March 13, 2008, which Mr. Ricketts signed. She informed him that she would not file the papers until he paid her bill.

On October 10, 2008 the Grievance Committee hand-delivered a letter to the respondent advising her to submit the overdue material immediately or a motion for her interim suspension might ensue. The Grievance Committee directed the respondent to advise it if she contended that her depression prevented her from adequately defending against the allegations. She failed to respond.

When provided with a copy of the respondent's answer, which was eventually received as part of the respondent's opposition to the Grievance Committee's prior order to show cause, Ms. Ricketts submitted a reply in which she vehemently disputed the respondent's version of events.

Although the respondent admitted service of the Grievance Committee's order to show cause on May 25, 2009, she has neither submitted a reply nor requested additional time in which to do so.

Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, without opposition, the respondent is suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4 (l)(1)(i) and (ii) on the ground that she constitutes an immediate threat to the public, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on the petition dated May 15, 2009; the respondent is directed to submit an answer within 20 days; and this matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report, with a report to be submitted within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda.

PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court