Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M125390

E/nl

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.

PETER B. SKELOS

MARK C. DILLON

JOSEPH COVELLO

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JJ.

2011-03789 In the Matter of George R. Alderdice, admitted as George Robert Alderdice, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; George R. Alderdice, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3947637)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (1) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding based upon the allegations set forth in a verified petition dated April 4, 2011; and (3) to refer 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 20, 2001, under the name George Robert Alderdice.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed 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 (iii), the respondent, George R. Alderdice, admitted as George Robert Alderdice, 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, George R. Alderdice, admitted as George Robert Alderdice, 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, George R. Alderdice, admitted as George Robert Alderdice, 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 Tenth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, against George R. Alderdice, admitted as George Robert Alderdice, based on the verified petition dated April 4, 2011; and it is further,

ORDERED that Robert A. Green, Chief Counsel, 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 order, the respondent, George R. Alderdice, admitted as George Robert Alderdice, shall serve a copy of his answer to the petition upon the Grievance Committee and the Special Referee, and file the original with the Court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the verified petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Geoffrey O'Connell, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Tenth Judicial District, 617 DuBois Avenue, Valley Stream, N.Y. 11581, 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, George R. Alderdice, admitted as George Robert Alderdice, 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 lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.

The instant motion emanates from four complaints of professional misconduct filed against the respondent.

Sua Sponte Investigations

The Grievance Committee commenced sua sponte investigations upon receipt of three dishonored check notices from the Lawyer's Fund for Client Protection (hereinafter the Lawyer's Fund). The Grievance Committee received from the Lawyer's Fund a dishonored check notice dated February 19, 2010, with accompanying bank report, listing four dishonored checks drawn on the respondent's attorney trust account at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. By letter dated March 1, 2010, sent via regular mail to the respondent's registered office address in Lindenhurst, the Grievance Committee notified him that it had commenced a sua sponte investigation based upon the foregoing notice, provided him with copies of said notice and attachment, requested a written answer explaining the facts and circumstances of the transactions in question, and requested bank and bookkeeping records pertaining to the account for the previous six months. Subsequently, the Grievance Committee received from the Lawyer's Fund another dishonored check notice dated February 26, 2010, involving an additional check drawn on the respondent 's attorney trust account, which was returned unpaid. By letter dated March 5, 2010, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that it had commenced a sua sponte investigation based upon the foregoing notice, provided him with a copy of same, requested that he submit a written answer explaining the deficiency in his attorney trust account, and reiterated the request for required bank and bookkeeping records for the preceding six months.

Unbeknownst to the Grievance Committee, at some indeterminate time, the respondent had relocated his office to Levittown. Nevertheless, it appears that at least one of the Grievance Committee's letters was forwarded to the respondent at his new address, inasmuch as the respondent replied by letter dated March 29, 2010, on letterhead indicating his new office location. In pertinent part, the respondent explained that all of the account deficiencies were the result of an unspecified fraud involving Wazir Singh. However, the respondent failed to provide any further details concerning the alleged fraud. Moreover, other than a copy of one check and a one-page sheet of account transactions upon which he highlighted the alleged fraud, the respondent failed to provide any of the bank records requested in the Grievance Committee's letters.

By letter dated April 1, 2010, sent via regular mail to the respondent's Levittown address, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that his answer to the foregoing complaints was inadequate in several respects, particularly in its failure to elaborate upon the purported fraud and how it impacted upon the account in question. In addition, the Grievance Committee noted that the respondent had not provided any of the bank statements and/or bookkeeping records requested. The Grievance Committee also sent follow-up letters to the respondent dated May 10, 2010, and August 23, 2010, respectively, via certified mail, return receipt requested, renewing its previous requests and advising the respondent that failure to cooperate constitutes professional misconduct, independent of the merits in the underlying complaint. Although these two letters were delivered, as reflected by the return receipts, the respondent failed to reply.

The Grievance Committee independently subpoenaed the respondent's trust account records from the bank. Given the respondent's failure to supply a ledger or other bookkeeping records, the account could not be completely analyzed and/or reconciled. However, a review of the records indicates that about $4 million dollars flowed through the account from October 2009 through February 2010. Moreover, the account balance fell below $0 from January 26, 2010, through January 31, 2010, while a credit of unspecified origin in February 2010 brought the account balance to $0. Finally, the records indicate that the respondent withdrew an aggregate of over $400,000 from the account using withdrawal slips.

Subsequently, the Grievance Committee received from the Lawyer's Fund a third dishonored check notice dated June 18, 2010, with accompanying bank report, pertaining to another attorney trust account maintained by the respondent at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. By letter dated June 24, 2010, sent via regular first class mail, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that it had opened a sua sponte investigation on the basis of the foregoing notice, provided him with a copy of same, requested that he submit a written answer to the complaint within 10 days of receipt, requested bank statements and other required bookkeeping records for the preceding six months, and advised him that failure to cooperate constituted professional misconduct independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. Follow-up letters dated August 23, 2010, and September 28, 2010, respectively, were sent to the respondent via certified mail, return receipt requested. Although the return receipts indicate that the letters were delivered, the respondent failed to answer and provide the requested records. The Grievance Committee independently subpoenaed the account records from the bank. A review of the records indicates that over $1 million dollars flowed through the account during the period from January 2010 through August 2010. However, the account fell below $0 and from July 29, 2010, through August 16, 2010.

On February 23, 2011, the respondent was personally served with a judicial subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, returnable March 9, 2011, directing him to appear for an examination under oath at the Grievance Committee's office and to produce the bank and bookkeeping records previously requested. The respondent failed to appear for the examination and failed to provide the aforesaid records.

The Carter Complaint

On February 14, 2011, the Grievance Committee received a complaint against the respondent from Shelley Carter. In relevant part, Carter alleged that she had retained the respondent in September 2010, to represent her in connection with her sale of real property located in Brooklyn. Upon execution of the contract, the purchaser entrusted the respondent with $25,000, representing the down payment, to be held in escrow pending completion of the transaction. In December 2010, Carter requested that the respondent provide "a down payment escrow letter" to the purchaser in connection with an application for a mortgage. The respondent failed to provide the letter. Since that time, Carter has been unable to contact the respondent, as he has apparently closed his law office in Levittown. The respondent continues to withhold the funds and Carter's new attorney has been unable to complete the transaction as a result.

On or about February 23, 2011, the respondent was personally served with a letter from the Grievance Committee dated February 18, 2011. The Grievance Committee advised the respondent that it had opened an investigation based upon the foregoing complaint, provided him with a copy of same, requested that he submit a written answer within 10 days of receipt, and advised him that an unexcused failure to timely respond or otherwise properly cooperate in the matter constituted professional misconduct independent of the underlying merits. No answer was received.

The respondent has neither opposed the motion nor submitted any response relative thereto. Based upon 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) and (iii), pending further order of this Court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

RIVERA, J.P., SKELOS, DILLON, COVELLO and ANGIOLILLO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court