Opinion
2014-04-1
In the Matter of Donald B. ROSENBERG (admitted as Donald Bertram Rosenberg), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Donald B. Rosenberg, Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Kevin P. Culley, of counsel), for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Kevin P. Culley, of counsel), for petitioner. No appearance for respondent.
ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, Justice Presiding, ROLANDO T. ACOSTA, DIANNE T. RENWICK, HELEN E. FREEDMAN and SALLIE MANZANET–DANIELS, Justices.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Donald B. Rosenberg was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on June 23, 1959, under the name Donald Bertram Rosenberg. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
In September and October 2012, the Department Disciplinary Committee received five separate complaints from respondent's former clients regarding the status of their personal injury actions and/or their settlement funds. Respondent answered each complaint and submitted bank records for his IOLA account for each client. These records revealed that respondent used each client's settlement funds for his own personal use without permission to do so.
Subsequently, this Court issued a subpoena requiring respondent's appearance for a deposition on July 22, 2013. Respondent failed to appear at the deposition. Instead, by letter dated July 19, 2013, respondent's counsel wrote the Committee advising that he was recently retained and after discussing the matter with respondent, “he now declines to appear at your Office for this deposition.”
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order pursuant to the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR 603.4[e][1][i] and [iii] ), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law based upon his failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigations concerning escrowed funds, and based upon uncontested evidence of professional misconduct (i.e., conversion of such escrowed funds).
The Committee served respondent's counsel with the motion to suspend. However, counsel has written this Court advising that he no longer represents respondent in connection with this motion; a copy of the motion was forwarded to respondent; and counsel spoke with respondent “and he understands that he will either have to retain counsel or proceed pro se.” Respondent has not submitted a response.
The Committee has demonstrated that respondent has failed to fully cooperate with the Committee and that there is uncontested evidence, in the form of bank records, demonstrating that respondent improperly used his IOLA account ( see Matter of Linder, 112 A.D.3d 152, 974 N.Y.S.2d 66 [1st Dept.2013]; Matter of Lee, 14 A.D.3d 98, 786 N.Y.S.2d 519 [1st Dept. 2004] ). Such conduct is “serious misconduct that demands an immediate response in defense of the public interest” ( Lee, at 100, 786 N.Y.S.2d 519 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Matter of Harris, 97 A.D.3d 96, 945 N.Y.S.2d 72 [1st Dept.212]; Matter of Reis, 96 A.D.3d 53, 942 N.Y.S.2d 101 [1st Dept.2012]; Matter of Maruggi, 87 A.D.3d 201, 928 N.Y.S.2d 275 [1st Dept.2011;]; Matter of Holubar, 73 A.D.3d 214, 899 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1st Dept.2010] ); Matter of Wertis, 307 A.D.2d 15, 18–19, 759 N.Y.S.2d 483 [1st Dept.2003] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion for an order immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until such time as disciplinary proceedings have been concluded and until further order of this Court should be granted.
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. All concur.