Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M237815

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

MARK C. DILLON

HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2017-04934 In the Matter of Robert H. Parker, admitted as Robert Hayes Parker, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Robert H. Parker, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4064903)

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 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that he failed to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee in its investigation, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to notify the respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) that he may be disbarred by the Court without further notice in the event he continues to fail to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months; and (3) pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(c), 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 July 24, 2002, under the name Robert Hayes Parker. The Grievance Committee has served and filed a verified petition dated April 28, 2017, and a notice of petition dated May 9, 2017.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), the respondent, Robert H. Parker, admitted as Robert Hayes Parker, 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, Robert H. Parker, admitted as Robert Hayes Parker, shall promptly comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); 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, Robert H. Parker, admitted as Robert Hayes Parker, 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 if the respondent, Robert H. Parker, admitted as Robert Hayes Parker, 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 1240.15(f); and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised are referred to David I. Ferber, Esq., c/o Ferber, Chan Essner & Coller, LLP, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2050, New York, NY 10165, as Special Referee, to hear and report, with the hearing to be completed within 60 days of this decision and order on motion, or as soon as practicable, and to submit a report, which contains his findings on the issues and charges, within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), in the event the respondent, Robert H. Parker, admitted as Robert Hayes Parker, fails to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of this decision and order on motion, he may be disbarred by the Court without further notice.

We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on his failure to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts in its investigation of complaints of professional misconduct filed against him, and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct, namely the misappropriation of funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary.

The Cheng Complaint

On or about October 14, 2015, the Grievance Committee received a complaint filed by Rose Cheng, alleging that the respondent, as escrow agent in a real estate transaction, failed to return her $98,000 down payment after the transaction was not consummated. Cheng further alleged that the respondent failed to respond to her attorney's requests for proof that the funds were being preserved and safeguarded in an attorney escrow account. The $98,000 was entrusted to the respondent as escrow agent in February 2015.

By letter dated October 22, 2015, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent of the Cheng complaint and requested a written response within 10 days of receipt. When the respondent failed to submit a written answer, a second request was made by letter dated November 18, 2015. The respondent requested an extension to submit an answer to the Cheng complaint and the deadline was extended until December 29, 2015. Additionally the respondent also was directed to appear at the Grievance Committee's office on January 6, 2016, for an examination under oath (hereinafter "EUO"). Subsequently, at the respondent's request, the deadline for answering the Cheng complaint and the EUO were adjourned twice and the respondent ultimately answered the Cheng complaint and appeared at the Grievance Committee's office for an EUO on February 2, 2016.

By letter dated February 3, 2016, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit, inter alia, his attorney escrow account records pertaining to Cheng's $98,000 down payment no later than February 17, 2016. The respondent failed to produce the requested records. In response to the Grievance Committee's inquiries, the respondent advised that he would deliver the records on April 4, 2016. However, he failed to do so. Thereafter, the respondent did not return the Grievance Committee's telephone calls.

The Tang Complaint

On or about April 4, 2016, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Thomas Tang, alleging that he had delivered $27,000 to the respondent to remit to the District Attorney's Office on his behalf, but the respondent failed to remit the money. By letter dated April 13, 2016, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent of the Tang complaint and requested a written response within 10 days. When the respondent failed to respond, a second request was made by the Grievance Committee by letter dated May 4, 2016. The respondent failed to answer the Tang complaint.

The Shaw Complaint and the Paschall Complaint

On or about April 7, 2016, and May 5, 2016, respectively, the Grievance Committee received complaints from Andrew B. Shaw, Esq. and his client, Kwang H. Paschall, alleging that Paschall retained the respondent in June 2015 to assist her in securing her husband's military death benefits and Paschall paid the respondent $3,750 in fees. Subsequently, the respondent failed to complete the work, ceased communicating with Paschall, and ignored Shaw's written requests for Paschall's file.

By letters dated April 27, 2016 and May 11, 2016, respectively, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent of the Shaw and Paschall complaints and requested answers. Additionally, the Grievance Committee made a second request for an answer to the Shaw complaint by letter dated May 11, 2016. The respondent failed to submit written answers to the Shaw and Paschall complaints.

The Armstrong Complaint

On or about May 23, 2016, the Grievance Committee received a complaint from Tina Armstrong, alleging, inter alia, that the respondent had neglected her deceased son's lawsuits, failed to turn over settlement funds received in 2014, and was not communicating with her. By letter dated June 1, 2016, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent of the Armstrong complaint and requested his answer within 10 days. The respondent failed to respond.

The respondent again appeared at the Grievance Committee's office on June 8, 2016 for an EUO on all pending matters. Although the respondent stated that Cheng's $98,000 down payment was intact in his escrow account at Chase Bank, ending in 34965, he failed to provide any documents regarding his escrow account or Cheng's down payment. The Grievance Committee again provided the respondent with copies of the four outstanding complaints and directed him to submit written answers, as well as attorney escrow account records, by June 21, 2016. Despite follow up letters from the Grievance Committee dated June 14, 2016, August 17, 2016, September 15, 2016, and November 2, 2016, the respondent failed to submit written answers to the Tang, Shaw, Pashall, and Armstrong complaints or produce the escrow account records as requested.

Uncontroverted Evidence of Professional Misconduct

Pursuant to subpoena, the Grievance Committee obtained records from JP Morgan Chase Bank for the respondent's account denominated "Robert Hayes Parker, Attorney at Law," ending in 34965 (hereinafter the "Chase Account"). A review of the bank records reveals that on February 23, 2015, the respondent deposited a $98,000 down payment check payable to "Robert Parker, As Attorney," into the Chase Account. Two days later, the balance in the Chase Account was $96,300. On April 25, 2016, the balance in the Chase Account was $.54.

Although personally served with a copy of the instant motion on May 19, 2017, the respondent did not submit a response or request additional time in which to do so.

We find that the respondent's immediate suspension is warranted in light of the uncontested evidence which shows he misappropriated Cheng's $98,000 down payment, failed to submit answers to four grievance complaints, and failed to produce escrow account records, despite repeated requests.

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 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), pending further order of this Court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), in the event the respondent hereafter fails to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of this order, the Court may, without further notice, disbar him, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.

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

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court