In re Dalley
Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committeе, New York City (Vitaly Lipkansky of counsel), for petitioner.
Leonard J. Levenson for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Respondent John A.R. Dаlley was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on April 29, 1992, under the name John Albert Reuben Dalley. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent maintаined an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Depаrtment.
Respondent was charged by the Disciplinary Committee with six violations оf the lawyers’ Code of Professional Responsibility, all of which stemmed from thе improper handling of his IOLA account. Charge One asserted that respondent misappropriated escrow funds by engaging in the unauthorized invasion and use of escrow funds in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility
Prior tо the hearing, respondent and the Committee entered into a stipulation whereby respondent made factual admissions which constituted violatiоns of
Relying on respondent‘s factual stipulation and bank records from respondent‘s IOLA account, the Referee sustained all five charges. The Referee made the specific factual finding that respondent never intentionally converted client or third party funds and that all disbursements in question werе made on behalf of clients.
At the sanction hearing, after hearing respondent and the testimony of two witnesses, and considering a number of letters submittеd on respondent‘s behalf, the Referee determined that the conduсt was nonvenal and aberrational and recommended that a publiс censure was most appropriate under these circumstancеs. The Referee also made a finding that respondent continued to use client funds for the payment of escrow checks
The Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order pursuant to
We have consistently held that public censure is appropriate for escrow violations such as improper record keeping, nonvenal conversion and commingling, especially where a respondent expresses remorse and cooperates fully with the Committeе (see Matter of Cohen, 12 AD3d 29 [2004]; Matter of Land, 299 AD2d 83 [2002]). This is especially appropriate in cases where, аs here, there were findings made by both the Referee and Hearing Panel that “the conduct giving rise to the charges reflected poor judgment rather than dishonesty” (Matter of Cohen, supra at 31).
Accordingly, the Committee‘s motion should be granted, respondent‘s cross motion denied, and respondent publicly censured.
Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ., concur.
Respondent publicly censured.