Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M134774

E/ct

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J.

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

MARK C. DILLON

ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

2010-07431 In the Matter of Jasleen Anand, admitted as Jasleen Kaur Anand an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Jasleen Anand, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4030086)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District: (1) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law pending the consideration of charges of professional misconduct against her pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), upon a finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon her failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee in connection with its investigation into her professional conduct and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to authorize the institution and prosecution of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon a verified petition dated December 6, 2011; and (3) to direct that a hearing be held before a Special Referee appointed to hear and report with respect to each of the issues raised by the charges set forth in the verified petition and any answer thereto. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on April 10, 2002, under the name Jasleen Kaur Anand. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated October 25, 2010, the respondent 's motion to permit her to enroll in a diversion program pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(m)(1) and to stay a pending investigation by the Grievance Committee was denied and the Grievance Committee was directed to proceed with its investigation. By decision and order on application of this Court dated November 28, 2011, the respondent's proffered resignation was rejected.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed 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, Jasleen Anand, admitted as Jasleen Kaur Anand, 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, Jasleen Anand, admitted as Jasleen Kaur Anand, 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, Jasleen Anand, admitted as Jasleen Kaur Anand, 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 Tenth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court against Jasleen Anand, admitted as Jasleen Kaur Anand, based on the verified petition dated December 6, 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 her of a copy of this decision and order on application, the respondent, Jasleen Anand, admitted as Jasleen Kaur Anand, shall serve an answer to the verified petition dated December 6, 2011, on the petitioner and the Special Referee and file the original answer with this Court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the verified petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Michael J. Mullen, Lamb & Barnosky, LLP, 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 210, P.O. Box 9034, Melville, N.Y. 11747-9034, 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, Jasleen Anand, admitted as Jasleen Kaur Anand, 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 lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) in connection with its investigation into her professional misconduct, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.

The instant motion emanates from the Grievance Committee's investigation of one complaint of professional misconduct, filed against the respondent, as follows:

The Grievance Committee received a complaint from A. Richard Burke, Esq., on behalf of the estate of Prit Pal Singh. The probate of Mr. Singh's will was pending in the Westchester County Surrogate's Court. Mr. Burke was one of two co-executors of the estate. In or around 2007, the other co-executor, Pradeep Sen, engaged the respondent to probate the will.

The thrust of Mr. Burke's complaint was that the respondent, without authorization, disbursed estate funds to herself and/or her law firm, and failed to fully and satisfactorily account for estate funds that came into her possession incident to her representation of the estate. Mr. Burke asserted that, from an estate with a gross value of approximately $480,000, the respondent had disbursed to herself approximately $230,000. She apparently did so using the power of attorney given to her by co-executor Pradeep Sen. When Mr. Burke brought his concerns to the respondent's attention, she retained counsel. A series of letters were thereafter exchanged between Mr. Burke and the respondent's counsel, in which, among other things, the respondent admitted that she had disbursed estate funds to herself as and for "legal fees."

By letter dated July 2, 2009, Mr. Burke advised the respondent that she had taken a large number of actions regarding the estate without his knowledge and requested that the respondent provide an accounting of all funds collected and disbursed on behalf of the estate, together with an itemized bill for her legal services including time sheets and/or other supporting documents.

By letter dated July 13, 2009, sent to co-executor Pradeep Sen, with a copy to Mr. Burke, the respondent provided a "summary" of the legal fees she claimed to have earned, together with a "summary" of transactions on the estate account. The respondent did not provide documents detailing the legal services she claimed to have provided to the decedent between 2005 and 2006. The respondent also produced a "summary" of legal services ostensibly provided to the estate from 2007 through 2009, but, again, failed to provide any supporting documentation. Moreover, the respondent failed to produce bank and/or other bookkeeping records pertaining to the estate account.

The "summary" of estate transactions provided by the respondent indicated that, between December 5, 2008, and June 13, 2009, three deposits totaling $480,720.52 had been made into the estate account. Of this amount, the respondent had disbursed to herself and/or her law firm $234,700.

By letter dated December 8, 2009, the respondent's then-counsel advised Mr. Burke that efforts were being made to secure financing to resolve any dispute with the estate regarding the services rendered by the respondent. By further letter dated February 1, 2010, the respondent's then-counsel advised Mr. Burke that the respondent was continuing her efforts to obtain financing.

By letter dated April 16, 2010, Mr. Burke advised the respondent's then-counsel that the respondent should "self report" her conduct to the Nassau County Bar Association Grievance Committee and that, barring a resolution of the respondent's mishandling of the estate within 30 days, he would take the necessary steps to protect the estate. By letter dated May 7, 2010, Mr. Burke requested copies of "pleadings, petitions, correspondence, estate bank statements, receipts and estate checks" regarding the estate matter. By letter dated May 14, 2010, Mr. Burke advised the respondent's then-counsel that, in the absence of a reply to his prior request, he was referring the matter to the Grievance Committee.

By letter dated May 28, 2010, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that an investigation had been commenced upon receipt of the Burke complaint. The respondent was provided with a copy of the complaint, was requested to respond, in writing, within 10 days, and was advised that an unexcused failure to respond or otherwise properly cooperate constituted professional misconduct, independent of the merits of the complaint. The respondent was reminded that the pendency of a grievance did not sever the attorney-client relationship and she was advised to take appropriate steps to ensure that the estate's rights were protected. The respondent thereafter requested, and was granted, an extension of time to answer the complaint, until June 29, 2010. By letter dated June 14, 2010, the respondent's current-counsel appeared in the matter and advised that a response to the Burke complaint would be submitted on or before June 29, 2010. However, no response was received.

Approximately one month after the response was due, the respondent's counsel moved for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(m), seeking a stay of the Grievance Committee's investigation while the respondent enrolled in a diversion program. This motion was denied by decision and order of this Court dated October 25, 2010, and the Grievance Committee was directed to proceed with its investigation. By letter dated November 4, 2010, the Grievance Committee provided the respondent's counsel with the foregoing decision, along with notice of entry, and requested that the respondent provide a written answer to the Burke complaint within 10 days.

The respondent did not answer until December 14, 2010. In pertinent part, the respondent characterized her disbursement of legal fees to herself and/or her law firm as the payment of "expenses" out of the estate account, using a power of attorney from "the executor," which activity the respondent thought was "appropriate." She further asserted that these actions were based upon her "misunderstanding of the law." The respondent stated that she now knew that her withdrawal of funds was "not properly done." She related that she and her attorney were "in the process of reviewing [her] records to determine what funds [needed] to be returned to the estate."

By letter dated January 6, 2011, the Grievance Committee requested that the respondent provide her entire file for the underlying estate matter, all bank and bookkeeping records for the estate account, and invoices or other records documenting the legal fees she claimed to have earned. No response was received. By further letter dated March 7, 2011, the Grievance Committee requested compliance with its previous request for information, within 10 days.

By letter dated March 14, 2011, the respondent's counsel replied that a response would be provided during the week of March 21, 2011. However, on March 27, 2011, the respondent's counsel sent a facsimile to the Grievance Committee advising that the respondent would be proffering a resignation in lieu of responding. In the absence of said resignation the Grievance Committee obtained, on or about May 10, 2011, a judicial subpoena duces tecum compelling the respondent to deliver her file and estate records to the Committee's offices by June 8, 2011, and a judicial subpoena directing her to appear at the Grievance Committee's offices for an examination under oath on June 15, 2011. These subpoenas were served on the respondent's counsel on May 25, 2011, after the respondent could not be located, declined to disclose her location when contacted on her cellular telephone, and directed the investigator serving the subpoenas to contact her attorney.

By letter dated May 31, 2011, the respondent's counsel forwarded to the Grievance Committee a proposed affidavit of resignation. On or about June 7, 2011, the Grievance Committee forwarded the proposed resignation to the Court, noting that the affidavit supporting the resignation mischaracterized the nature of the complaint against her and advising the Court that the Committee believed that further investigation would result in formal charges, including, conversion of funds. By decision and order on application dated November 28, 2011, this Court rejected the proffered resignation.

Following personal service of the instant motion papers on December 6, 2011, the respondent's counsel submitted a response in which he stated that the respondent had voluntarily removed herself from the practice of law and that she did not oppose the motion.

Based upon the foregoing, the 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 the respondent, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

MASTRO, A.P.J., RIVERA, SKELOS, DILLON and FLORIO, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court