Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M262565

E/mm

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

MARK C. DILLON

RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ.

2018-13866 In the Matter of Mirna L. White, admitted as Mirna Loyce White, an attorney and counselor-at-law Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Mirna L. White, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3027067)

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)(2) and (5), upon a finding that she is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, and (2) to appoint 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 April 12, 2000, under the name Mirna Loyce White. The Grievance Committee served and filed a notice of petition and a verified petition, both dated November 26, 2018, and the respondent served and filed a verified answer dated January 2, 2019.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

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

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2) and (5) Mirna L. White, admitted as Mirna Loyce White, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of this Court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Mirna L. White, admitted as Mirna Loyce White, shall promptly comply with the 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, Mirna L. White, admitted as Mirna Loyce White, 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, Mirna L. White, admitted as Mirna Loyce White, 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 Honorable Patricia M. DiMango, 330 East 38th Street, Suite 23C, New York, NY 10016-2759, 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 the report, which contains her findings on the issues and charges, to be submitted within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda.

We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on uncontroverted evidence that she misappropriated client funds with respect to five client matters, and made improper cash withdrawals from her attorney escrow account.

The respondent maintained at all relevant times an attorney escrow account at TD Bank entitled, "Mirna L White Law Group IOLA Attorney Trust Account" (hereinafter the TD escrow account).

In 2016 the respondent, as attorney for Lloyd Gray, the seller of property in Brooklyn, New York, received two down payment checks, each for $5,000, from the buyer (hereinafter the Gray funds). In or about March 2016, the respondent deposited the Gray funds into the TD escrow account and was required to maintain those funds on deposit until closing. After depositing the Gray funds, the respondent made cash withdrawals from the TD escrow account. By May 31, 2016, prior to the closing, the TD escrow account balance had been depleted to $8.13, well below what the respondent should have been holding.

In 2016 the respondent, as attorney for Bryan Johnson, the seller of property in Jamaica, New York, received a $5,000 down payment check from the buyer, Tamiko Pascal (hereinafter the Johnson/Pascal funds). On June 14, 2016, the respondent deposited the Johnson/Pascal funds into the TD escrow account and was required to maintain those funds on deposit until closing. Between June 14, 2016, and July 6, 2016, the respondent made 16 cash withdrawals in varying amounts from the TD escrow account. On two occasions during that same period, the respondent made electronic payments for personal expenses. By July 6, 2016, prior to the Johnson/Pascal closing, the TD escrow account balance had been depleted to $75.58, well below what the respondent should have been holding.

In 2016 the respondent, as attorney for Monica Johnson, the seller of property in Newark, New Jersey, received a $18,750 down payment check from the buyer, Kervin Asson (hereinafter the Johnson/Asson funds). On August 5, 2016, the respondent deposited the Johnson/Asson funds into the TD escrow account and was required to maintain those funds on deposit until closing. Between August 5, 2016, and September 29, 2016, the respondent made 35 cash withdrawals in varying amounts from the TD escrow account. On six occasions during that same period, the respondent made electronic payments for personal expenses. By September 29, 2016, prior to the Johnson/Asson closing, the TD escrow account balance had been depleted to $527.85, well below what the respondent should have been holding.

In 2016 the respondent, as attorney for Tracy John, the seller of property in Deer Park, New York, received two down payment checks, one for $1,000 and the other for $4,000, from the buyer, Life in the Lane, LLC (hereinafter the John/Life in the Lane funds). On August 25, 2016, the respondent deposited the John/Life in the Lane funds into the TD escrow account and was required to maintain those funds on deposit until closing. Between August 25, 2016, and September 29, 2016, the respondent made 23 cash withdrawals in varying amounts from the TD escrow account. On three occasions during that same period, the respondent made electronic payments for personal expenses. By September 29, 2016, prior to the John/Life in the Lane closing, the TD escrow account balance had been depleted to $527.85, well below what the respondent should have been holding.

In 2016 the respondent, as attorney for Michelle Lyman Morgan, the seller of property in Brooklyn, New York, received two down payment checks, for $10,800 and $5,000, respectively, from the buyer, Bashaun Wyatt (hereinafter the Morgan/Wyatt funds). On September 30, 2016, the respondent deposited the Morgan/Wyatt funds into the TD escrow account and was required to maintain those funds on deposit until closing. Between September 30, 2016, and November 10, 2016, the respondent made 28 cash withdrawals in varying amounts from the TD escrow account. On five occasions during that same period, the respondent made electronic payments for personal expenses. By November 10, 2016, prior to the Morgan/Wyatt closing, the TD escrow account balance had been depleted to $1,915.18, well below what the respondent should have been holding.

In opposition to the motion, the respondent admits her misconduct, but contends that she poses no immediate threat to the public because she never intended to permanently deprive any client or third party of any funds and that she remitted all funds owed to the parties entitled to the funds. According to the respondent, at the time of the transactions discussed above, she believed that her only obligation was to make the escrowed funds available at closing, and that she did not understand that she was required to maintain the funds in her escrow account between the time of deposit and the time the real estate transaction closed.

We find that the Grievance Committee has sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent poses an immediate threat to the public interest based on her intentional and repeated misappropriation of client funds for personal use. The respondent invaded her escrow account on a steady basis for personal reasons, and she did so continuously and knowingly.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2) and (5), pending further order of this Court, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, DILLON and BALKIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court