Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M238022

E/ct

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

MARK C. DILLON

ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

2017-04706 In the Matter of Maureen M. McNamara, admitted as Maureen Margaret McNamara, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Maureen M. McNamara, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 1259241)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District (1) to suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) and (5), 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/or other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct; (2) to notify the respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), that she may be disbarred by the Court without further notice in the event she 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 First Judicial Department on February 5, 1979, under the name Maureen Margaret McNamara. The Grievance Committee has served and filed a verified petition and notice of petition dated May 2, 2017.

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 1240.9(a)(3), the respondent Maureen M. McNamara, admitted as Maureen Margaret McNamara, 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, Maureen M. McNamara, admitted as Maureen Margaret McNamara, shall promptly comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred and 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, Maureen M. McNamara, admitted as Maureen Margaret McNamara, 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 if the respondent, Maureen M. McNamara, admitted as Maureen Margaret McNamara, 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 1240.15(f); and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised 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, with the hearing to be completed within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, or as soon thereafter 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 that the respondent, Maureen M. McNamara, admitted as Maureen Margaret McNamara, continues to fail to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the date of this decision and order on motion, she 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 her failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District in its investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct filed against her.

On May 31, 2016, the Grievance Committee received a complaint filed by Michael D. Diederich, Jr., alleging that the respondent had failed to satisfy a $10,000 judgment he had obtained against her, and, in an unrelated matter, that a sanction in the sum of $10,000 had been imposed against her. By letter dated June 2, 2016, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent of the Diederich 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 October 12, 2016. Both letters advised the respondent that her failure to timely respond or otherwise cooperate would constitute professional misconduct independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. The respondent failed to respond.

On November 10, 2016, the respondent called the Grievance Committee and advised that on November 6, 2016, she had been hospitalized. On November 16, 2016, having still not received an answer to the Diederich complaint, the Grievance Committee served the respondent with a judicial subpoena and a judicial subpoena duces tecum directing her to appear at the Grievance Committee's office to give testimony on November 22, 2016, and produce records relating to the Diederich complaint. On November 18, 2016, the respondent called the Grievance Committee and advised that she was again ill, and was granted an adjournment of her appearance until December 22, 2016.

By letter dated December 14, 2016, hand-delivered and sent by regular, first class mail, the Grievance Committee reminded the respondent of her obligation to appear at its office on December 22, 2016, pursuant to the judicial subpoenas, and that her failure to appear as scheduled might result in a motion for her interim suspension.

On December 19, 2016, the respondent called the Grievance Committee and again advised that she was ill, and was granted an adjournment of her appearance until January 5, 2017. By letter dated December 19, 2016, the Grievance Committee, inter alia, directed the respondent to provide medical records to support her requests for adjournments, and advised that her failure to appear on January 5, 2017, might result in a motion seeking her suspension from the practice of law. On January 4, 2017, the respondent faxed a letter to the Grievance Committee, which, inter alia, described her medical difficulties between November 2016 and January 2017, requested another adjournment which would allow her to respond to the Diederich complaint in writing, and inquired as to the specific medical records sought by the Grievance Committee.

On January 5, 2017, the respondent submitted her medical records to the Grievance Committee, together with a letter dated January 5, 2017, purporting to respond to the Diederich complaint. The respondent's January 5, 2017, letter did not fully address Diederich's allegations.

Based on the medical records provided by the respondent, the Grievance Committee adjourned her appearance until February 16 , 2017. The respondent failed to appear on February 16, 2017. The respondent claimed she "didn't have the date down." The respondent appeared at the Grievance Committee's office on February 28, 2017, and gave sworn testimony. By letters dated February 28, 2017, and March 2, 2017, the respondent was asked to submit, within three weeks of her appearance, inter alia, documents relating to the Diederich complaint. The Grievance Committee also requested information concerning clients for whom the respondent had provided legal services subsequent to November 2016, and whether she received fees for such services, as the Grievance Committee had discovered that the respondent had been registered as "retired" with the Office of Court Administration since August 10, 2016. When the respondent failed to submit the requested information, another request was made by the Grievance Committee by letter dated March 16, 2017, which also advised the respondent that her failure to respond within 10 days might result in a motion for her suspension.

By fax letter dated March 22, 2017, the respondent advised the Grievance Committee that she required an additional week to gather responsive information. As of the date that the motion was made the respondent had failed to submit the requested information.

In a prior disciplinary proceeding under Appellate Division Docket No. 2001-08741, the respondent was disciplined for failing to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigations, and suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, by opinion and order dated February 3, 2003 (see Matter of McNamara, 303 AD2d 129). The respondent was reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law by decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 8, 2007.

We find that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on her failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigation of a complaint of professional misconduct.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law for her failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3), pending further order of this Court, the respondent is on notice that, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), in the event she hereafter fails to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the date of this decision and order on motion, the Court may, without further notice, disbar her, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.

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

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court