Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M93113

E/cb

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JJ.

2009-06092 In the Matter of Tanya E. Lawrence, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Tanya E. Lawrence, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4594610)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts for an order: (1) suspending the respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(iii) upon a finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that there exists substantial uncontroverted evidence establishing that she procured her admission to the Bar by fraud; (2) authorizing the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against her based on a petition dated June 29, 2009; (3) directing the respondent to submit an answer; and (4) appointing 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 November 19, 2008.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and the papers submitted in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(iii), the respondent, Tanya E. Lawrence, 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, Tanya E. Lawrence, 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, Tanya E. Lawrence, 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 Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against Tanya E. Lawrence, based on the petition dated June 29, 2009; and it is further,

ORDERED that Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, Renaissance Plaza, 335 Adams Street, Suite 2400, Brooklyn, N. Y. 11201-3745, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon her of a copy of this order, the respondent, Tanya E. Lawrence, 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 thereto are referred to David I. Ferber, Esq., Ferber Chan Essner & Coller, LLP, 530 Fifth Avenue, 23rd Floor, New York, N.Y. 10036, as Special Referee to hear and report, together with his findings 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, Tanya E. Lawrence, 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 uncontroverted evidence that she procured her admission to the Bar by fraud.

By order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, filed November 4 2005, the respondent was disbarred and permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law for knowing misappropriation of client funds and other conduct involving fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New Jersey in 1998. In 2002, she received a three month suspension for lack of due diligence, failure to communicate with clients, charging unreasonable fees, unauthorized practice of law, use of a misleading letterhead, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. That matter proceeded as a default. In 2003, she was admonished for practicing law while ineligible. In limiting the sanction to an Admonition, the New Jersey court considered that the respondent was unaware of her ineligible status at the time. The respondent had not applied for reinstatement in New Jersey at the time of her disbarment.

Although she was not admitted to practice in New York at the time, the respondent maintained attorney trust accounts at Citibank in New York and at Fleet National Bank in New Jersey. She also maintained an attorney business account at Citibank. The clients who were the subjects of the New Jersey disbarment proceeding were the respondent's only clients in New Jersey.

The respondent was retained by Janine Marchetti to represent her on a wrongful termination of employment claim. She received a $500 retainer and settled the claim for $2,000. The respondent cashed the settlement check on July 14, 2000, did not deposit it into her attorney trust or business account, and only attempted to send the client her share of the settlement funds some eight months later, when she sent the check to a member of the New Jersey District XIII Ethics Committee. After the check was returned with instructions to deal directly with the client, the respondent then attempted to deliver the three month old check to her client, who refused to accept it. The respondent ultimately sent her client a check dated November 6, 2001, for the entire $2,000. The client testified that she never authorized the respondent to use her settlement proceeds.

The respondent represented Victorio Tolentino in connection with his automobile accident in January 1999. She accepted a settlement offer of $3,478.07 and deposited a check in that amount in her Citibank business account on October 17, 2000. The respondent's bank records reveal that the Tolentino funds were dissipated by November 15, 2000, when the account showed a negative balance of $-4.95. After depositing the check, the respondent wrote a check to cash for $1,000 and made 15 automatic teller machine withdrawals. The respondent explained that she cashed the check to cover her expenses in the Marchetti matter. She used the remainder of the Tolentino funds to cover her law firm expenses. Tolentino testified that he did not loan the respondent any portion of his settlement proceeds. The respondent paid Tolentino by check in November or December 2001, and testified that the delay in payment was due to her inability to contact Tolentino.

The respondent's testimony that she had held the Marchetti funds in another account was found to be incredible by the Special Master. The respondent's contention that she had obtained a cashier's check from Citibank when she deposited the settlement check for Tolentino was similarly found to be incredible.

On her application for admission to the New York State Bar, the respondent failed to disclose either her disbarment or her prior discipline in New Jersey. With respect to question 10 on the application for admission submitted by the respondent on or about December 27, 2007, the respondent indicated that she had applied for admission to practice as an attorney in another jurisdiction but, in response to the specific inquiry regarding the name of each jurisdiction and court by which she was admitted and the date of admission, the respondent indicated only that she had applied to be admitted to the Connecticut Bar and that said application, which was filed on September 10, 2007, was pending. She made no mention whatsoever of her admission or removal from the New Jersey Bar.

The application for admission further requires applicants admitted in other states or countries to attach: "(1) an original copy of a certificate of admission and good standing at the Bar from each such jurisdiction and (2) a letter from each such jurisdiction's grievance committee, or other body entertaining complaints against lawyers, where available, certifying as to whether changes have been filed with such committee or body against you, and, if so, the substance of the charges and the disposition thereof." The respondent failed to submit any statement from the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.

The respondent falsely answered in the negative with respect to the subdivisions of question 13 of the application for admission regarding whether the applicant has ever testified, refused to testify, or been granted immunity in any matter pending before a prosecuting or investigating agency; has ever been charged with fraudulent conduct or any other act involving moral turpitude; or ever been involved in any civil or criminal action or investigation not covered by the foregoing subdivisions.

The respondent replied in the negative to question 9(b) of the application concerning whether her conduct has ever been called into question with reference to the unauthorized practice of law. Grievance Counsel notes that the respondent's initial New Jersey suspension related to her accepting a retainer to perform legal services in New York without being admitted.

In response to an inquiry by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, the respondent conceded that she failed to answer several questions on her application for admission to the New York State Bar. She maintains, however, that those omissions were completely unintentional and were not an attempt to deceive the Committees on Character and Fitness.

The Grievance Committee submits that the respondent's failure to mention either her disbarment or suspension in New Jersey could not have been unintentional given the extensive nature of the questions on the New York application. Significantly, the respondent's disbarment occurred after she appeared personally before the New Jersey Supreme Court only two years before submitting her New York application. According, to the Grievance Committee, the respondent's omission was a deliberate attempt to conceal from the Committees on Character and Fitness and this Court information which was clearly relevant and which would undoubtedly have resulted in the denial of her application for admission. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee perceives the respondent as an immediate threat to the public interest and seeks her immediate suspension.

The respondent submitted an answer, dated July 13, 2009, to the Grievance Committee's motion, in which she affirms that she was disbarred in New Jersey for failure to safeguard client funds, denies that she was suspended for accepting a retainer to perform legal services in New York without being admitted in New York, and generally denies the Grievance Committee's allegations that she deliberately concealed information on her application for admission to the New York Bar. The respondent requests that the court permit her to revise and re-file her application for admission to practice, deny the Grievance Committee's motion on the ground that it failed to produce uncontroverted evidence that she procured her admission to practice in New York by fraud, and asks that a disciplinary proceeding not be instituted.

The Grievance Committee's motion is granted. Based on her concealing the fact of her disbarment, the respondent is suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(iii) on the ground that she constitutes an immediate threat to the public interest, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based on the petition dated June 29, 2009, the respondent is directed to submit an answer within 20 days, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report, with a report to be filed within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court