Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M198496

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

MARK C. DILLON

RUTH C. BALKIN

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

2014-05930 In the Matter of Dawn M. Hughes, admitted as Dawn Marie Hughes, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Dawn M. Hughes, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4019303)

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 and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to authorize the institution and prosecution of a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent; 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 a verified petition dated May 12, 2015, and any answer thereto. Application by the respondent for a 45-day extension of time to assemble the bank and bookkeeping records sought by the Grievance Committee. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 23, 2002, under the name Dawn Marie Hughes.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto and upon the papers filed in support of the application 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 the application is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), the respondent, Dawn M. Hughes, admitted as Dawn Marie Hughes, 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, Dawn M. Hughes, admitted as Dawn Marie Hughes, 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, Dawn M. Hughes, admitted as Dawn Marie Hughes, 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 Dawn M. Hughes, admitted as Dawn Marie Hughes, based on the verified petition dated May 12, 2015; and it is further,

ORDERED that Mitchell T. Borkowsky, Chief Counsel to the 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 motion, the respondent, Dawn M. Hughes, admitted as Dawn Marie Hughes, shall serve a copy of her answer to the petition upon the Grievance Committee and the Special Referee, appointed herein, 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 Honorable Arthur J. Cooperman, 110-11 Queens Boulevard, Apt 10H, Forest Hills, N.Y. 11375, as Special Referee, 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 if the respondent, Dawn M. Hughes, admitted as Dawn Marie Hughes, 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 and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct

The instant application emanates from an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District of multiple complaints of professional misconduct filed against the respondent.

The Complaint of Lisa Samaan

By letter dated May 27, 2014, David M. Slater, Esq., filed a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent with the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District on behalf of his client, Lisa Samaan, alleging that the respondent had perpetrated a fraud in five private mortgage transactions. The complaint alleges that the respondent fabricated documents, created fictitious borrowers, and misrepresented the status of Samaan's legal matters. In total, Samaan alleges that the respondent defrauded her out of more than $1.125 million in funds. By letter dated June 9, 2014, sent via regular mail to the respondent's business address, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of the initiation of an investigation based upon the Samaan complaint, and requested that she provide a written answer within 10 days of her receipt of the letter. The letter was not returned to the Grievance Committee, and no response was received from the respondent.

A second request for the respondent's answer to the Samaan complaint was made by letter dated July 18, 2014, sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's home address. This letter was returned to the Grievance Committee marked "unclaimed." A third request was made by letter dated August 13, 2014, sent via regular mail to the respondent's home address. This letter was not returned to the Grievance Committee, and no response was received from the respondent.

By letter dated September 9, 2014, sent via regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's home address, the Grievance Committee again requested that she submit a written response to the Samaan complaint within 10 days of her receipt of the letter. Receiving no response from the respondent, by letter dated November 10, 2014, sent via regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's home address, the Grievance Committee made a demand for the respondent's answer. After being notified that the respondent had retained an attorney to represent her before the Grievance Committee, a further demand was made by letter dated November 17, 2014, advising the respondent's attorney that his client's response to the Samaan complaint was due by December 1, 2014. To date, the respondent has failed to submit a written response to the Samaan complaint.

The Grievance Committee obtained the respondent's bank records from the Bank of America pursuant to subpoena. A review of the bank records indicates that Samaan transferred funds into the respondent's Bank of America IOLA account No. XXXXXXXX0127 (hereinafter the IOLA account) on October 14, 2009, and that the respondent used the Samaan funds, in part, to satisfy her escrow liability to other clients. Further, contrary to the respondent's representation to Samaan, a review of the respondent's October 2009 bank statement does not reveal any evidence that the respondent utilized Samaan's funds to purchase a mortgage.

The Complaint of Hector G. Pineros

On July 11, 2014, the Grievance Committee received a complaint of professional misconduct against the respondent from Hector G. Pineros, who had retained the respondent to represent him as the lender in two private mortgage transactions. Pineros alleges that the respondent fabricated documents, created fictitious borrowers, and misled him concerning the status of his matters. By letter dated July 18, 2014, sent via regular mail to the respondent's business address, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent of the initiation of an investigation based upon the Pineros complaint, and requested that she provide a written answer within 10 days of her receipt of the letter. The letter was not returned to the Grievance Committee, and no response was received from the respondent.

By letter dated September 9, 2014, sent via regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's home address, the Grievance Committee again requested that she submit a written response to the Pineros complaint within 10 days of her receipt of the letter . The letter sent via certified mail was returned to the Grievance Committee marked "unclaimed." The letter sent via regular mail was not returned to the Grievance Committee, and no response was received from the respondent.

A demand for the respondent's answer was made by the Grievance Committee, by letter dated November 10, 2014, sent via regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, to the respondent's home address. After being notified that the respondent had retained an attorney to represent her, by letter dated November 17, 2014, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent's attorney that his client's response to the Pineros complaint was due by December 1, 2014. To date, the respondent has failed to submit a written response to the Pineros complaint.

The Dishonored Check Complaints

In November 2009, the Grievance Committee was notified by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (hereinafter the LFCP), that a check in the amount of $27,500, issued from the respondent's IOLA account had been dishonored on October 6, 2009, due to insufficient funds. By letter dated November 24, 2009, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that it had opened a sua sponte investigation, and requested that she submit a written explanation for the dishonored check, together with copies of her bank and bookkeeping records within 20 days of her receipt of the letter. While the respondent sent a written explanation by letter dated December 14, 2009, indicating that the dishonored check was issued in connection with a real estate transaction without correlating funds on deposit, she failed to provide the Grievance Committee with the requested bank and bookkeeping records.

By letter dated July 7, 2010, the Grievance Committee again requested the respondent's bank and bookkeeping records concerning her IOLA account, as well as the documents relating to the underlying real estate transaction. On September 20, 2010, the Grievance Committee received an undated letter from the respondent, together with the documents from the underlying real estate transaction, without the requested IOLA account records. A third request for the respondent's IOLA account records was made by the Grievance Committee, by letter dated March 23, 2011. Once again, the respondent failed to comply. A final request was made by the Grievance Committee, by letter dated August 19, 2011, sent by certified mail, return receipt requested to the respondent's law office. The postal receipt reflects that the letter was delivered to the respondent's office on August 22, 2011. To date, the respondent has failed to submit the requested bank and bookkeeping records concerning her IOLA account as requested by the Grievance Committee.

A second dishonored check report was received by the Grievance Committee from the LFCP in April 2012 in connection with the respondent's JP Morgan Chase Co. escrow account No. xxxxxx5359 (hereinafter the escrow account). The LFCP notice indicated that on March 22, 2012, check number 1445 in the amount of $17,320 issued from the respondent's escrow account had been dishonored due to insufficient funds. By letter dated May 8, 2012, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that it had opened a sua sponte investigation, and requested that she submit a written explanation for the dishonored check, together with copies of her bank and bookkeeping records, within 20 days of her receipt of the letter. The Grievance Committee did not receive a response from the respondent.

After being notified that the respondent had retained counsel, the Grievance Committee sent a letter dated June 20, 2012, to her attorney requesting his client's written explanation for the dishonored escrow check, as well as the previously requested bank and bookkeeping records within 10 days of receipt of the letter. The Grievance Committee received no response.

On or about July 24, 2012, the respondent appeared before the Grievance Committee for an examination under oath. At that time, the respondent agreed to provide the Grievance Committee with the requested bank and bookkeeping records, but failed thereafter to do so.

By letter dated October 12, 2012, the Grievance Committee once again requested the respondent's attorney to provide his client's written explanation for the dishonored item, as well as the previously requested bank and bookkeeping records within 10 days of receipt of the letter. Although the respondent submitted a response to the Grievance Committee by letter dated November 19, 2012, she failed to produce the requested bank and bookkeeping records. To date, the respondent has failed to produce her bank and bookkeeping records concerning her escrow account as requested by the Grievance Committee.

In response to the motion, the respondent has requested an additional 45 days to assemble the bank and bookkeeping records sought by the Grievance Committee.

Based upon the forgoing, the respondent's application is denied and 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 her, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, DILLON, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court