Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M205987

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

MARK C. DILLON

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

2015-09973 In the Matter of Paige Juliet Segrell, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Paige Juliet Segrell, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4428843)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth 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), (ii), 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, substantial admissions under oath that she committed acts of professional misconduct, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to authorize the institution and prosecution of a disciplinary proceeding based upon the allegations set forth in a verified petition dated October 15, 2015; 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 November 15, 2006.

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, Paige Juliet Segrell, 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, Paige Juliet Segrell, 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, Paige Juliet Segrell, 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 Ninth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, against Paige Juliet Segrell, based on the allegations contained in the verified petition dated October 15, 2015; and it is further,

ORDERED that Gary L. Casella, Chief Counsel, Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, Crosswest Office Center, 399 Knollwood Road, Suite 200, White Plains, NY 10603, 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, Paige Juliet Segrell, 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 Marc S. Oxman, Esq., c/o Oxman, Tulis, Kirkpatrick, Whatt & Geiger, LLP, 120 Bloomingdale Road, White Plains, NY 10605, 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, Paige Juliet Segrell, 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 Ninth Judicial District, and her failure to maintain her attorney registration.

By letter dated May 15, 2014, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that a sua sponte complaint had been opened based upon her failure to re-register as an attorney, and pay her attorney registration fees for the 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 registration periods. The respondent was asked to submit a written answer to the complaint, together with a completed background questionnaire, within 10 days, of her receipt thereof. The respondent was also asked to provide proof of her updated registration within 45 days of her receipt of the complaint. No response was received from the respondent.

In late July 2014 a staff member of the Grievance Committee twice telephoned the respondent, and left a message requesting that she return the call. No response was received from the respondent.

By letter dated July 30, 2014, sent to the respondent via certified mail, return receipt requested, the Grievance Committee again requested that she submit an answer, together with the background questionnaire and proof of her updated registration by August 18, 2014. The Grievance Committee also enclosed directions for registering online with the Office of Court Administration. No response was received from the respondent.

On October 23, 2014, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent, a third request, and directed her to submit an answer, together with the background questionnaire, and an explanation for her failure to timely cooperate. The respondent was further advised that should she fail to respond by November 10, 2014, the Grievance Committee would pursue all legal remedies. The respondent again failed to respond.

After receiving a telephone message on December 9, 2014, from the Grievance Committee, the respondent returned the call. In response to her claim that she had not received the original complaint, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of the complaint, and requested that she provide an answer, together with the background questionnaire, and proof of her updated registration by December 29, 2014. The Grievance Committee also provided the respondent with directions for filing her registration online. No response was received from the respondent.

The respondent was served with a judicial subpoena, so-ordered by this Court on April 9, 2015, which commanded her appearance at the office of the Grievance Committee on May 19, 2015. The respondent appeared on the return date of the subpoena, and admitted that she had not submitted her attorney registration after 2008, notwithstanding her recognition of her obligation to keep her attorney registration current. The respondent stated that she would comply with her registration obligation.

In response to an inquiry from the Grievance Committee, on May 27, 2015, the respondent advised that she would place the background questionnaire in the mail the next day. The respondent failed to do so.

By letter to the respondent dated June 26, 2015, the Grievance Committee stressed the need for her attorney registration to be addressed, and reminded the respondent to submit the background questionnaire. The respondent was asked to submit a response by July 17, 2015, and further advised that her failure to comply would compel the Grievance Committee to proceed accordingly.

To date, the respondent has failed to answer the complaint or submit the background questionnaire, and has failed to re-register with the Office of Court Administration, notwithstanding the numerous requests and opportunities provided for her to do so.

Although the respondent was personally served with the motion, she has neither opposed the motion nor otherwise submitted a response.

Based upon the foregoing, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii), the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pending further order of this Court, based upon her failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee, her substantial admissions under oath of professional misconduct, and the other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct establishing her failure to maintain her attorney registration; the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent, based on the verified petition dated October 15, 2015; and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.

ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court