Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M102211

E/ct

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

JOSEPH COVELLO, JJ.

2009-06747 In the Matter of Ganiu Owolabi Ajose, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Ganiu Owolabi Ajose, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2670925)

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)(I), (ii) and (iii), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that he has failed to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation, and the existence of other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) authorizing it to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based upon the allegations set forth in a petition dated January 26, 2010; (3) directing the respondent to answer the petition; and (4) referring the issues raised 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 June 7, 1995.

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)(i), (ii) and (iii), the respondent, Ganiu Owolabi Ajose, 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, Ganiu Owolabi Ajose, 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 himself 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 Ganiu Owolabi Ajose, based on the petition dated January 26, 2010; and it is further,

ORDERED that Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel, 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 him of a copy of this order, the respondent 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 the Honorable James Starkey, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, 215 Adams Street, Suite 15B, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201, 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, Ganiu Owolabi Ajose, 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 an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts and substantial admissions he has made under oath that he has committed acts of professional misconduct and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.

Complaint of Justice John G. Ingram

On or about May 22, 2009, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from the Honorable John G. Ingram, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, in connection with a pending criminal matter, People v Kehinde. On May 28, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent a copy of the complaint to the respondent at his home address, requesting an answer in 10 days. No answer was received. On June 25, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a followup letter, by certified and regular mail. To date, the respondent has not answered this complaint.

Complaint of Shui-Jiao Lin

On or about June 10, 2009, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Shui-Jiao Lin. On or about June 25, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent copy of the complaint to the respondent at his home address, requesting an answer in 10 days. No answer was received. On July 16, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a followup letter, by certified and regular mail. To date, the respondent has not answered this complaint.

Complaint of Boniface McKenzie

The Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Boniface McKenzie, and referred the matter to the Brooklyn Bar Association Fee Arbitration Panel (hereinafter the Panel). On February 28, 2008, the Panel awarded Mr. McKenzie the sum of $10,000, on default. The matter was returned to the Grievance Committee and on March 19, 2008, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent the original complaint and the Panel's award, requesting that he submit an answer and advise as to the status of the award. Following two requests for extensions of time, the respondent still did not answer. On June 3, 2008, the respondent telephoned the Grievance Committee and requested a further extension because he "broke his leg in two places." The Grievance Committee granted the respondent a 30-day adjournment and requested medical documentation of his purported injury. The respondent did not answer or provide medical documentation by the adjourned date. The respondent appeared before the Grievance Committee on September 2, 2008, for an investigative appearance, but failed to submit an answer and refused to testify regarding the McKenzie matter. On or about September 5, 2008, the McKenzie arbitration award was confirmed, on default, and a judgment was entered in McKenzie 's favor in the principal sum $11,495. On September 22, 2008, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, by certified and regular mail, requesting an answer to the complaint and information regarding the status of the judgment. By letter dated October 21, 2008, the respondent advised the Committee that he intended to challenge the judgment, and requested the Grievance Committee to await completion of the litigation. By letter dated December 20, 2008, responding to the Grievance Committee's written inquiry, the respondent advised that he had taken no affirmative steps to vacate the default judgment. To date, the respondent has not answered the complaint, nor has he satisfied the judgment.

Complaint of Tolulope Omolaja

On or about March 1, 2007, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Tolulope Omolaja. Ms. Omolaja alleged that in 2003, she retained the respondent to represent her in connection with an application for a green card and paid him $1,455. She subsequently learned that the respondent never filed the application. In August 2005, she demanded the return of her money and her file but to no avail.

On or about March 22, 2007, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of the complaint and requested a written answer within 10 days. No answer was received. On April 27, 2007, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a followup letter, by certified and regular mail. On April 30, 2007, the respondent requested an extension of time to allow him to retrieve his files because he had been evicted from his law office in February 2007. From May 2007 to March 2008, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent repeated requests for an update or an answer. The respondent either failed to respond or indicated that he had not yet retrieved Omolaja's file. On March 21, 2008, the Grievance Committee extended the respondent's time to answer to April 4, 2008, and requested supplemental information regarding the number of case files rendered inaccessible by his eviction, the status of those matters, and what, if any, affirmative steps were being taken to retrieve those files.

On April 4, 2008, the respondent submitted a written answer to the Omolaja's complaint, but failed to respond to the supplemental inquiries. The respondent claimed that he filed papers with INS, but INS never received them. He refused to refile and pursue the matter. However, the respondent neither communicated in writing to Ms. Omolaja his decision not to pursue her matter, nor did he issue her any refund.

Complaint of W. Fadipe-Ilori

On or about March 28, 2007, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from W. Fadipe-Ilori. Ms. Fadipe-Ilori alleged that she retained the respondent in October 2006 to represent her husband in a criminal matter for an agreed sum of $7,500, with $4,000 paid up front. The respondent made one appearance in October 2006 and adjourned the matter until January 2007. He made no further appearances. Efforts by Ms. Fadipe-Ilori to contact the respondent were unavailing.

On April 11, 2007, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of Ms. Fadipe-Ilori's complaint and requested an answer within 10 days. By letter dated April 30, 2007, the respondent requested an extension of time in order to retrieve the Fadipe-Ilori file. He was directed to keep the Grievance Committee apprised of his efforts. Only after the Grievance Committee sent multiple letters requesting a status on his retrieval efforts or directing the respondent to submit an answer, did the respondent finally submit an answer on April 4, 2008.

In his answer, the respondent conceded that he undertook to represent Ms. Fadipe-Ilori's husband in October 2006, even though the respondent was planning to travel abroad in November or December. The respondent asked the court for an adjournment prior to his departure, but unfortunately did not return to the United States until April 2007 due to an accident. Upon his return, he did not contact Ms. Fadipe-Ilori. At his investigative appearance before the Grievance Committee, he admitted that he never contacted Ms. Fadipe-Ilori or the court during his extended absence, which lasted from December 2006 until about April 2007.

Complaint of Diana Kyei

On or about February 4, 2008, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Diana Kyei. Ms. Kyei alleged that in 2005, she met a woman named "Hajiah Rukie Aziz", a non-lawyer, who introduced Ms. Kyei to the respondent, and that the respondent agreed to assist Ms. Kyei's daughter in an immigration matter. Although Ms. Kyei made payments of approximately $15,000, she had been unable to contact either of Ms. Aziz or the respondent after her daughter's scheduled interview with the INS was adjourned.

On February 21, 2008, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of Ms. Kyei's complaint and requested that he submit a written answer within 10 days. By letter dated February 25, 2008, the respondent claimed that Ms. Kyei was unknown to him and had not paid him any money. On March 12, 2008, the Grievance Committee received supplemental correspondence from Ms. Kyei. A copy of Ms. Kyei's supplemental correspondence was sent to the respondent on March 19, 2008, and the respondent was requested to submit a written answer within 10 days. By letter dated April 4, 2008, the respondent advised the Grievance Committee that inasmuch as Ms. Kyei's daughter, Patricia Adu-Poku, was an adult, he felt constrained from divulging confidential information without the daughter's authorization.

Authorization executed by Patricia Adu-Poku was provided to the respondent by letter dated May 6, 2008, along with a request that the respondent submit a written answer within 10 days. The respondent failed to answer. On June 3, 2008, the respondent telephoned the Grievance Committee and requested an extension. A 30-day extension was granted. Not until August 24, 2008, did the Grievance Committee receive the respondent's written answer.

In his answer, the respondent conceded that he "received a call from Ms. Aziz informing [him] that she had a client . . . who had an immigration interview and would like to hire [him]." The respondent received $5,000 from Mz. Aziz to appear with Ms. Adu-Poku at her immigration interview in Virginia in connection with her application for a green card. The respondent traveled to the immigration interview, but the interview was adjourned. Although Ms. Adu-Poku's immigration interview was adjourned in contemplation of a future appearance, the respondent subsequently determined not to pursue the matter. However, the respondent did not refund any of the money he received.

Complaint of William Kyei

On or about December 18, 2008, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from William Kyei. Mr. Kyei alleged that in October 2005, a lady named Hajiah Rukie Aziz, a non-laywer, introduced him to the respondent for the purpose of obtaining a green card. Mr. Kyei paid Ms. Aziz a sum of money. According to Mr. Kyei, subsequent efforts to contact Ms. Aziz and the respondent have been to no avail, as have efforts to secure a refund of the money he paid.

On January 14, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of Mr. Kyei's complaint and requested a written answer within 10 days. No answer was received. On February 23, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent a follow-up letter, by certified mail and regular mail, requesting an answer with 10 days. On February 25, 2009, the respondent telephoned the Grievance Committee and advised that his wife informed him of the complaint, but that he was in Africa, and therefore, unable to respond. Asked to memorialize the conversation and provide proof of travel, the respondent claimed that he did not have access to a computer and could not send an e-mail. He indicated that he would advise the Grievance Committee when he returned to the United States. However, the Grievance Committee received no communication from the respondent.

On May 4, 2009, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a followup letter, by certified and regular mail, requesting a written answer to Mr. Kyei's complaint. On May 26, 2009, the respondent requested another copy of the complaint, which was furnished on June 1, 2009. On or about June 10, 2009, the respondent submitted a written answer, wherein he admitted that he received $1,500 from Ms. Aziz, to submit on Mr. Kyei's behalf an application for a green card, which was prepared and filed.

Complaint of Veronese Adams

On or about February 8, 2008, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Veronese Adams. Ms. Adams alleged that "Hajiah Rukie Aziz" introduced her to the respondent in May 2005 in connection with her application for a green card. She paid Ms. Aziz a sum of money for the respondent to appear with her at her interview with the Immigration Service. Ms. Adams' application was denied. Since the interview, Ms. Adams has been unsuccessful in recovering the money she paid. On February 22, 2008, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of Ms. Adam's complaint and requested that he submit a written answer within 10 days. On or about March 4, 2008, the Grievance Committee received an answer. In his answer, the respondent conceded that he received a fee from Ms. Aziz to assist Ms. Adams with her application before the INS, that he appeared on the day of the interview but that it "did not go well." He subsequently decided not to assist Ms. Adams any further.

Annexed to the Grievance Committee's motion papers is a petition dated January 26, 2010, containing 19 charges of professional misconduct against the respondent. The petition charges the respondent with violations the Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d) and (h); DR 1-102(A)(5) and (7); DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 2-110(A)(2) and (3), based on allegations of his failure to cooperate or timely cooperate; failure to satisfy a judgment entered against him incident to his practice of law; neglect of legal matters entrusted to him; failure to refund an unearned fee after withdrawing from a legal matter; improperly withdrawing from a legal matter entrusted to him; engaging in a pattern and practice of improperly sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer; and engaging in a pattern and practice of improperly accepting compensation for legal services from someone other than his client absent consent of the client to the representation after full disclosure.

In opposition to the motion, the respondent claims that he never received several of the complaints until now. We note, however, that the respondent still has not answered those complaints. With respect to various charges, the respondent denies that he failed to timely cooperate and denies that he committed any professional misconduct. To the contrary, the respondent alleges that the Grievance Committee is guilty of neglect by its failure to timely adjudicate the complaints.

The Grievance Committee notes that the respondent has a prior disciplinary history consisting of a December 20, 2000, Letter of Caution for failure to timely re-register with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA); a June 19, 2002, Admonition for failure to cooperate; a February 18, 2003, Admonition for failure to timely re-register with OCA; and a October 14, 2003, Admonition for failure to cooperate.

Based on the foregoing, 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),(ii) and (iii), pending further order of this court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

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

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court