In re Taylor
Jorge Dоpico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Paul L. Friman of counsel), for petitioner.
Emani P. Taylor, respondent pro se.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Per Curiam.
Respondent Emani P. Taylor was admitted to the practice of lаw in the State of New York by the Fourth Judicial Department on July 17, 1997, under the name Emani Pamela Taylor. At most times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
This disciplinary proceeding arises out of respondent‘s conduct as the former interim successor guardian in a guardianship proceeding involving John L. Phillips, a former Brooklyn civil court judge, now deceased. By order entered December 27, 2007 (48 AD3d 138 [1st Dept 2007]), this Court immediately suspended respondent from the practicе of law pursuant to
In August 2008, the Committee moved for respondent‘s immediate disbarment, pursuant to
In May 2011, the Committee, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, sought to find respondent guilty of professional misconduct based upon findings made by Justice Michael Ambrosio in Supreme Court, Kings County, including that respondent‘s misconduct in paying herself counsel fees from guardianship funds was so egregious that she had to be surcharged for misappropriating those funds (Matter of Phillips, 20 Misc 3d 1111[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51316[U] [2008], affd 72 AD3d 828 [2d Dept 2010]). Particularly, following a framed-issue hearing, Justice Ambrosio imposed the following surcharges: $197,416.08 for legal feеs which respondent improperly withdrew from guardianship accounts without court authorization; $52,500 for fees respondent improperly took as a brokers commission in conneсtion with the sale of estate property by court auction; $120,215.37 for dissipating guardianship funds by using said funds to renovate property not owned by Phillips’ estate; $3,832.78 for using guardianship funds to pay her mоrtgage; and $29,184.63 for the unaccounted balance of a down payment from the sale of estate property located at 132-140 Herkimer Street in Brooklyn. Based on these surсharges, Judge Ambrosio granted the Phillips estate a judgment against respondent for $403,148.86, plus interest, and found that respondent forfeited all right to compensation due to the breach оf her fiduciary duty.
By order entered December 19, 2011, this Court granted the Committee‘s collateral estoppel petition to the extent of finding respondent guilty of professional miscоnduct in violation of
At the hearing, respondent testified that her misconduct was the result of mistakes, and that there was no intent to defraud. Respondent acknowledged that she has not paid any of the $403,148.86 in surcharges imposed against her because, in her view, despite Justice Ambrosio‘s finding that she was not entitled to compensation, she is owed approximately $700,000 from Judge Phillip‘s estate based on quantum meruit. As evidence in aggravation, the Committee introduced a 2004 admonition respondent received for improperly notarizing a surrender agreement in a real estate matter, and claimed that respondent engaged in the practice of law while suspended and lacked remorse for her misconduct.
“[u]nder the circumstances, the Panel has very little discretion in terms of its recommendation and on these facts has no wish for any. [Respondent‘s] wrongdoing arose in a court-ordered guardianship, rather thаn an attorney-client relationship, but it has not been suggested that the Disciplinary Rules are therefore inapplicable, and in its order of December 19, 2011, the Appellate Division applied them here. The order of the Appellate Division of December 19, 2011 in this matter determined that [respondent] violated DR 1-102 (A) (4) and DR 9-102 (A). ‘This Court has consistently held that absent extremely unusual mitigating circumstances, an attorney‘s intentional conversion of client funds constitutes grave misconduct requiring disbarment.’ Apart from the fact that [respondent] has already beеn suspended for over four years, there are no ‘extremely unusual circumstances’ here—in fact, quite the contrary, as for some of [respondent‘s] defalcations no exсuse has even be attempted, and she has not returned the money she had no right to take. It is therefore the recommendation of the Panel that [respondent] be disbarred.” (Citations omitted.)
The Committee now seeks an order, pursuant
While we agree with the Panel that the Committee did not sufficiently establish whether respоndent continued to hold herself out as an attorney and/or engaged in the practice of law while suspended, given the aggravating factors in this case and the absence of “exceptional mitigating circumstances,” respondent‘s misconduct, which includes the intentional conversion of guardianship funds, requires her disbarment (see Matter of Katz, 109 AD3d 143 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of Kennedy, 99 AD3d 75 [1st Dept 2012]; Matter of Squitieri, 88 AD3d 380 [1st Dept 2011]). In addition, respondent‘s grossly inadequate record keeping and cash withdrawals in violation of
Accordingly, the Committee‘s petition should be granted, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Hearing Panel confirmed, аnd respondent disbarred and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
Respondent disbarred, and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.