Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M214317

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

REINALDO E. RIVERA

MARK C. DILLON

RUTH C. BALKIN

JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

2016-02190 In the Matter of John E. Campbell, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; John E. Campbell, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4246161)

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 him pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(l)(i), (ii), and (iii), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee, his substantial admissions under oath, 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 March 4, 2016; 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 First Judicial Department on June 22, 2004.

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, John E. Campbell, 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 E. Campbell, 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 E. Campbell, 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 Ninth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, against the respondent, John E. Campbell, based on the verified petition dated March 4, 2016; 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 him of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the respondent, John E. Campbell, shall serve a copy of his answer to the verified 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 the Hon. Alfred J. Weiner, c/o Mandel, Katz, and Brosnan, LLP, 210 Route 303 Valley Cottage, NY 10989, 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, John E. Campbell, 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 upon his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, his substantial admissions under oath, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.

The instant application emanates from an investigation by the Grievance Committee of multiple complaints of professional misconduct.

Complaint of Frances A. Latella

Frances A. Latella alleged that she had paid the respondent $10,000 in or about August 2013 to challenge the criminal conviction of her nephew, but that the respondent had failed to take any meaningful steps to pursue that goal, and failed to refund the $10,000 fee to Latella, notwithstanding his assertion that he would do so. The respondent was notified by the Grievance Committee of the Latella complaint by letter dated July 16, 2015, and was asked to submit an answer within 10 days of his receipt thereof. Receiving no response, the Grievance Committee sent a second request to the respondent, via certified mail, by letter dated August 11, 2015. No answer was received from the respondent.

The Grievance Committee served the respondent with a judicial subpoena commanding his appearance on September 24, 2015, for an examination under oath (hereinafter EUO), and a judicial subpoena duces tecum directing him to produce a copy of his file in connection with his representation of Latella's nephew. While the respondent failed to appear on the return date he thereafter appeared at the office of the Grievance Committee for an EUO on October 8, 2015. At the EUO the respondent admitted that he had not submitted an answer and claimed that he had been having difficulty addressing the matter as a result of personal issues. However, the respondent further testified that he was making progress, and advised that he would be able to submit a written answer to the Latella complaint by October 15, 2015. Concerning the allegations of the complaint, the respondent acknowledged that he had not filed any motions with regard to the criminal conviction. Further, the respondent testified that he intended to return the retainer fee to Latella.

Following the EUO, the respondent telephoned staff counsel on October 27, 2015, and advised, among other things, that he would deliver his answer the following day. The respondent failed to do so. By letter dated November 2, 2015, the Grievance Committee once again sought the respondent's answer, and reminded him that his failure to cooperate with the investigation may result in the Grievance Committee seeking his immediate suspension from the practice of law. To date, the respondent has not submitted an answer to the Latella complaint.

Complaint of Luis Carmo

Luis Carmo, the successful bidder on a foreclosed property in Yonkers, New York, alleged that the respondent, as the court-appointed referee, "cannot be found and has the 10% down payment, [and was] holding up the closing" of the foreclosure sale. By letter dated October 27, 2015, the Grievance Committee forwarded the Carmo complaint to the respondent, and requested that he submit an answer within 10 days of his receipt thereof. No response was received to that letter. A second request was sent to the respondent by certified mail on November 12, 2015, without response from the respondent. Additionally, by letter dated November 24, 2015, the respondent was asked to provide copies of his bank and bookkeeping records reflecting his receipt and maintenance of the down payment from Carmo in the foreclosure sale, within 10 days of his receipt thereof. The respondent failed to comply.

In response to a judicial subpoena duces tecum, JP Morgan Chase Bank provided the Grievance Committee with bank records identifying the account in which the Carmo down payment had been deposited. As reflected in those bank records, the respondent received two checks totaling $7,000 representing the Carmo down payment, which were deposited into an account entitled "The Gold Stop LLC," in September 2015 and November 2015. The respondent failed to deposit the Carmo down payment into an "IOLA account" as directed by the judgment of foreclosure and sale. After depositing the Carmo down payment, the balance in The Gold Stop LLC bank account fell below the $7,000 that had been entrusted to the respondent.

Based upon the foregoing, the petitioner submits that the uncontroverted bank records demonstrate that the respondent breached his fiduciary duty by failing to deposit the Carmo funds in an authorized special account, and by misappropriating those funds.

Complaint of Nanci DeMicco

Nanci DeMicco alleged that she had retained the respondent to represent her daughter in a criminal matter. Following a trial, the respondent advised DeMicco that he would file a motion. Thereafter, DeMicco claims that the respondent advised her that he had filed the motion, as well as a sentencing recommendation. Although DeMicco asked the respondent to provide copies of the filings, she never received them from him. Subsequently, DeMicco was contacted by the respondent's wife, who advised her that the respondent was ill, and that the next scheduled court appearance had been adjourned. DeMicco then contacted the Court Clerk's office, and learned that neither the motion nor the sentencing recommendation had been filed. By letter to the respondent dated October 28, 2015, DeMicco advised him that she would be retaining a new attorney to proceed with the case, and requested her daughter's file.

The respondent was notified by the Grievance Committee of the DeMicco complaint by letter dated October 29, 2015, and was asked to submit an answer within 10 days of his receipt thereof. When no answer was received from the respondent, the Grievance Committee made a second request by letter dated November 12, 2015. To date, the respondent has not submitted an answer.

Complaint of Sara Bernier

Sarah Bernier alleged that she retained the respondent and paid him $550 in August 2015 to represent her in a traffic violation matter. She claimed that he failed to appear at Court, and that she had to represent herself. Bernier adds that although the respondent agreed to send her a refund by overnight mail on November 12, 2015, she never received anything from him, and has been unable to communicate with him. The Grievance Committee notified the respondent of the Bernier complaint by letter dated December 17, 2015, and requested that he submit an answer within 10 days of his receipt thereof. To date, the respondent has not submitted an answer to the Bernier complaint.

Failure to Appear for the Second EUO

By letter dated January 5, 2016, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to appear on February 9, 2016, for an EUO with regard to the Latella, Carmo, DeMicco, and Bernier complaints. The respondent failed to appear.

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)(l)(i), (ii), and (iii), pending further order of this Court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.

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

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court