Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M146803

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JJ.

2012-06114 In the Matter of Ingrid Barclay, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Ingrid Barclay, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2436897)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts: (1) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i),(ii), and (iii), upon a finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on her failure to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee made in connection with its investigation, her substantial admissions made under oath that she committed acts of professional misconduct, and other uncontroverted evidence of misconduct; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon the allegations set forth in a petition dated June 20, 2012; (3) to direct the respondent to submit an answer to the petition; and (4) 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 November 13, 1991.

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),(ii), and (iii), the respondent, Ingrid Barclay, 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, Ingrid Barclay, 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, Ingrid Barclay, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee or 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 Ingrid Barclay, based on the petition dated June 20, 2012; 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 her of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the respondent, Ingrid Barclay, 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 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 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, Ingrid Barclay, 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 on her failure to comply with demands made by the Grievance Committee during its investigation, her admissions that, inter alia, she engaged in a pattern and practice of converting client funds, and other uncontroverted evidence of misconduct.

The respondent maintained an attorney escrow account at Capitol One Bank, entitled "Ingrid Barclay, Escrow Management Account." Between in or about June 2006 through in or about September 2011, she deposited personal funds into her attorney escrow account, wherein she maintained funds entrusted to her as a fiduciary, and failed to withdraw her legal fees from her attorney escrow account when earned. During the same period, the respondent issued approximately 80 checks payable to "cash," totaling $26,120. The respondent failed to maintain a ledger book or similar record of her attorney escrow account.

On or about August 18, 2006, the respondent represented Martin John for a real estate closing regarding premises located at 664 East 84 Street, Brooklyn. The respondent also represented Mr. John in his matrimonial action in the Supreme Court, Kings County. At the closing, the respondent was served with an order to show cause signed by the Honorable Eric Prus, dated August 17, 2006, in the matrimonial action, which directed that all money received on behalf of Mr. John relative to the closing of the sale of the subject premises be immediately placed in either parties' counsel's escrow account, and restrained Mr. John and any one acting on his behalf from transferring the closing proceeds, pending further order of the court. At the closing, the respondent received a check in the sum of $41,903.40 on behalf of Mr. John, that was payable to her, as attorney, and, on or about September 5, 2006, deposited that check into her escrow account. The respondent knew that she was required to maintain those funds in escrow until further order of the court. Between September 2007 and September 2009, the respondent depleted the funds by distributing $9,000 to Mr. John, and by taking or using the balance for herself. The respondent received a second court order, dated August 18, 2011, in which Justice Prus ordered the respondent to release $24,000 to Cheryl S. Solomon, the attorney for Mrs. John. The respondent no longer had in her possession the funds she was required to maintain. In the beginning of September 2011, the respondent deposited into her escrow account $25,000 borrowed from a friend. On or about September 9, 2011, the respondent tendered $24,000 from her escrow account by check payable to Cheryl Solomon, as attorney. On December 1, 2011, Justice Prus issued an order authorizing the respondent to "release the escrowed funds, currently held by her to Martin John." To date, the respondent has not given any additional funds to Mr. John.

On or about July 27, 2010, the respondent deposited a check in the sum of $36,000 from Zengsong Lin into her escrow account, representing the down payment on a contract for the sale of real property owned by her client, Delroy Williamson. The respondent was required to maintain those funds in escrow until at least March 8, 2011. Between July 27, 2010 and March 8, 2011, the respondent withdrew $8,500 of those funds for herself or issued checks against those funds to pay her personal bills. By January 31, 2011, the balance in the respondent's escrow account had been depleted to $27,411.76. By letters dated April 17, 2012, and May 2, 2012, the Grievance Committee requested that the respondent submit an answer to a complaint filed by Zengsong Lin. The respondent failed to respond to the letters, by either submitting an answer or requesting additional time in which to do so. At an examination under oath held on September 21, 2011, the respondent admitted that she failed to preserve the $36,000 deposited into her escrow account, and drew against it to pay personal bills. She claimed that her legal fees for the Williamson transaction were $8,500, but acknowledged that she was not supposed to withdraw her legal fees. She stated that she had no excuse, other than that she was having financial problems, and admitted that she made a mistake. In addition, she admitted that she did not maintain a ledger book for her escrow account.

On October 11, 2011, the respondent again appeared before the Grievance Committee. She admitted under oath that she failed to maintain the $41,903.40, which she had been directed by the court to keep intact, and that she made some payments to herself and some to Mr. John. Further, she admitted that she had depleted all the funds that she was supposed to be holding, and had to borrow funds from a friend to issue the $24,000 check to Cheryl Solomon.

Although personally served with a copy of the Grievance Committee's motion on July 6, 2012, the respondent has not submitted a response or requested additional time in which to do so.

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 her, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

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

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court