Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta In re Wilson 122 A.D.3d 1

← Cases

In re Wilson

122 A.D.3d 1 Court First Department, Decision date 2014-10-02 English

Judges Mazzarelli, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 1
[993 NYS2d 315]
In the Matter of Craig F. Wilson, an Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.
First Department,
October 2, 2014
p. 2
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Vitaly Lipkansky of counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Respondent Craig F. Wilson was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on October 31, 1988. At all times relevant herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) now petitions for an order, pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and (iii), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of the Court based upon his failure to fully cooperate with the Committee’s investigation of allegations of professional misconduct and other uncontested evidence of misconduct which immediately threatens the public interest.

The Committee’s motion is based upon complaints filed in connection with two unrelated legal matters wherein both clients alleged that respondent did not promptly turn over funds he had obtained on their behalf, and made false statements about the funds. The bank records obtained by the Committee show that the funds in question were deposited into respondent’s business operating account rather than his escrow account.

p. 3
We find that respondent’s conduct merits immediate suspension from the practice of law. Although respondent cooperated with the Committee to a limited extent, he repeatedly failed to provide information regarding his escrow account and did not appear for his continuing deposition. Such conduct constitutes willful noncompliance with a Committee investigation, warranting immediate suspension under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) (Matter of Mainiero, 98 AD3d 255 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Maruggi, 87 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2011]).

Respondent’s bank records indicate other uncontested evidence of professional misconduct under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (iii), in that respondent either intentionally converted and/or misappropriated escrow funds belonging to his clients (see Matter of Linder, 112 AD3d 152 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Cohen, 90 AD3d 21 [1st Dept 2011]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and (iii) is granted, and respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.

Mazzarelli, J.R, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof, until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded, and until further order of this Court.

Cases cited