Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M171560

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

MARK C. DILLON

RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ.

2013-11492 In the Matter of John M. Wilson, admitted as John Matthew Wilson, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Elev and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitione John M. Wilson, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2273043)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION enth, r;

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), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that he failed to submit written answers to complaints of professional misconduct filed against him; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon the allegations set forth in a verified petition dated December 23, 2013; (3) to direct the respondent to answer the verified petition within 20 days; 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 May 31, 1989, under the name John Matthew Wilson.

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), the respondent, John M. Wilson, admitted as John Matthew Wilson, 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, John M. Wilson, admitted as John Matthew Wilson, 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, John M. Wilson, admitted as John Matthew Wilson, 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 John M. Wilson, admitted as John Matthew Wilson, based on the verified petition dated December 23, 2013; 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 the issues raised by the petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Charles J. Thomas, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, Eleventh Judicial District, 50 East 89th Street, Apt. 10-F, New York, N.Y. 10128, to hear and report, and to submit a report, which contains his findings on the issues, within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the respondent, John M. Wilson, admitted as John Matthew Wilson, 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 if the respondent, John M. Wilson, admitted as John Matthew Wilson, 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 on his failure to cooperate with the lawful investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, with regard to five complaints of professional misconduct.

Sua Sponte Complaints

On July 25, 2012, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, addressed to his office, advising him that they had initiated an investigation against him due to receipt of a dishonored check report from the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (hereinafter the Lawyers' Fund), and directed him to submit a written answer within 20 days of his receipt thereof. The respondent did not submit a response, nor did he request an extension of time to respond. On January 15, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent a second letter, by first class mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's office. The certified mail was returned "unclaimed," but the first class mail was not returned. No answer was received, nor was a request for additional time to respond made.

On February 20, 2013, a third letter was sent, by first class mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the respondent's home address. The return receipt card, signed by the respondent's wife, was returned to the Grievance Committee. No answer was received and no extension was requested. On June 25, 2013, a fourth letter was sent, via certified mail, return receipt requested, and was hand-delivered, to the respondent's home address. The respondent's wife accepted the hand-delivered letter for the respondent. The certified letter was returned, marked "not deliverable as addressed" and "unable to forward."

On May 21, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, addressed to his office, advising him that they had initiated an investigation against him due to receipt of a second dishonored check report from the Lawyers' Fund, and directed him to submit a written answer within 20 days of his receipt thereof. The respondent did not submit a response, nor did he request an extension of time to respond. On June 25, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent a letter, by hand delivery and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's home. This letter demanded that the respondent submit an answer forthwith, and advised that if he failed to cooperate, an application might be made for his immediate suspension. The respondent's wife accepted the hand-delivered letter for the respondent. The certified letter was returned, marked "not deliverable as addressed" and "unable to forward."

On June 25, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, addressed to his office, advising him that they had initiated an investigation against him due to receipt of a third dishonored check report from the Lawyers' Fund, and directed him to submit a written answer within 20 days of his receipt thereof. The letter was hand-delivered and was sent by certified mail. The respondent's wife accepted the hand-delivered letter for respondent. The certified mail letter was returned to the Grievance Committee. The respondent did not submit a response, nor did he request an extension of time to respond.

To date, the respondent has failed to submit written answers to any of the aforementioned complaints.

Complaint of Tsilistina Ryabicheva

On March 12, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, addressed to his office, advising him that they had initiated investigation against him based on a complaint of professional misconduct filed by Tsilistina Ryabicheva, and directed him to submit a written answer within 10 days of his receipt thereof. On May 16, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent a second letter, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by first class mail to the respondent's office. The second letter advised that a failure to cooperate constituted professional misconduct independent of the merits of the complaint, and requested an answer by May 28, 2013. The certified mail was returned unclaimed, but the first class mail was not returned. To date, the respondent has failed to submit a written answer to the Ryabicheva complaint.

Complaint of Ella Butler

On June 25, 2013, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a letter, addressed to his home, advising him that they had initiated investigation against him based on a complaint of professional misconduct filed by Ella Butler, through her attorney, Paul F. Millus, and directed the respondent to submit a written answer within 10 days of his receipt thereof. The letter was sent, by hand delivery and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's home. The respondent's wife accepted the hand-delivered letter for respondent. The certified letter was returned to the Grievance Committee. To date, the respondent has failed to submit a written answer to the Butler complaint.

On October 30, 2013, a subpoena duces tecum and a subpoena ad testificandum, so-ordered by the Court, were personally served on the respondent. The subpoenas directed the respondent's appearance at the Grievance Committee's office at 10:00 A.M. on November 22, 2013, and directed him to produce escrow records and other files in connection with the above-referenced complaints. The respondent failed to appear. At 10:30 A.M. on November 22, 2013, a representative of the Grievance Committee telephoned the respondent who advised that he would appear that same day. The respondent failed to either appear or contact the Grievance Committee.

Although personally served with a copy of the order to show cause on January 8, 2014, the respondent has not submitted any papers in response or requested additional time in which to do so.

Based on 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), 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.

ENG, P.J., RIVERA, SKELOS, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court