Opinion
2013-01680 Attorney Registration No. 2495182 M159190
07-12-2013
In the Matter of Sean McCaffrey, admitted as Sean Francis McCaffrey, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; v. Sean McCaffrey, respondent.
, P.J.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO
REINALDO E. RIVERA
PETER B. SKELOS
MARK C. DILLON, JJ.
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 691.4(l)(1)(i), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that he failed to submit written answers to complaints of professional misconduct filed against him; (2) to authorize the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon the allegations set forth in a petition dated February 5, 2013; (3) to direct the respondent to submit an answer to the petition; and (4) to refer the issues raised to 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 September 16, 1992, under the name Sean Francis McCaffrey.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and no papers having been filed in opposition or in relation thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), the respondent, Sean McCaffrey, admitted as Sean Francis McCaffrey, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the Court; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Sean McCaffrey, admitted as Sean Francis McCaffrey, shall promptly comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); 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, Sean McCaffrey, admitted as Sean Francis McCaffrey, 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 himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this Court, against Sean McCaffrey, admitted as Sean Francis McCaffrey, based on the petition dated February 5, 2013; and it is further,
ORDERED that Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel, Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, Renaissance Plaza, 335 Adams Street - Suite 2400, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201-3745, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,
ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order on motion, the respondent, Sean McCaffrey, admitted as Sean Francis McCaffrey, shall serve an answer upon the petitioner and the Special Referee, and shall file the original answer with this Court; and it is further,
ORDERED that the issues raised by the petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable Charles J. Thomas, a former Justice of the Supreme Court, Eleventh Judicial District, 50 East 89th Street, Apt. 10-F, New York, N.Y. 10128, as Special Referee to hear and report, together with his findings on the issues, and to submit a report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,
ORDERED that if the respondent, Sean McCaffrey, admitted as Sean Francis McCaffrey, 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 his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f).
We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on a pattern and practice of failing to cooperate with the lawful investigations of the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts with regard to multiple complaints of professional misconduct filed against him.
From February 2012 through April 2012, the Grievance Committee received four separate complaints of professional misconduct against the respondent from Keith Um, Madsen P. Jolin, Aurora Huertas, and Charles Chin. Um and Huertas each alleged that the respondent neglected their respective legal matters which were entrusted to him and that they could not contact the respondent. Jolin alleged that the respondent neglected a legal matter and incompetently represented him, and that he had been unable to communicate with the respondent. Chin alleged that he could not reach the respondent in connection with a real estate transaction which he had retained the respondent to handle, and that the respondent had failed to return his calls.
With respect to each of these four complaints, the Grievance Committee forwarded a copy of the complaint to the respondent and directed him to submit a written answer within 10 days of receipt of the Grievance Committee's letter. When the respondent failed to answer or respond to this initial letter, the Grievance Committee sent subsequent follow-up letters, via certified mail, return receipt requested. The initial letters were sent to the respondent's office address listed with the Office of Court Administration. When the Grievance Committee learned that the respondent was no longer maintaining his office, follow-up letters (three in the case of Um, and two in the remaining three matters) were sent to the respondent's home address in Rhinebeck, New York. Copies of the return receipts were received by the Grievance Committee, and the receipts bore the signature of "L. McCaffrey", believed to be Lisa McCaffrey, the respondent's wife. With respect to each of the complaints, the respondent was advised in the second follow-up letter that his failure to cooperate constituted professional misconduct independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. Despite the many letters sent, the respondent neither answered the complaints nor requested additional time in which to do so.
The Grievance Committee initiated three sua sponte investigations based upon dishonored check reports received from the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (hereinafter the Lawyers' Fund) regarding the respondent's escrow accounts, in or about April 2012 (four dishonored checks), June 2012 (two dishonored checks), and July 2012 (nine dishonored checks). Following receipt of each report, a letter was sent to the respondent's home address, directing that he submit a written answer within 20 days of receipt of the Grievance Committee's letter. When no answer was received, a second or third letter was sent, via certified mail, return receipt requested. Copies of the return receipts were received by the Grievance Committee, and the receipts bore the signature of "L. McCaffrey." To date, the respondent has neither answered any of the complaints nor requested additional time in which to do so.
From September 2012 through November 2012, the Grievance Committee received two more complaints of professional misconduct against the respondent from Maksudur Rahman and Victoria Saljanin, who each alleged that the respondent neglected their legal matters which were entrusted to him and would not communicate with them. In each instance, the Grievance Committee forwarded a copy of the complaint to the respondent and directed him to submit a written answer within 10 days of his receipt of the Grievance Committee's letter. The respondent did not comply. In the case of Maksudur Rahman, a follow-up letter was sent, via certified mail, return receipt requested. The letter warned that a failure to cooperate might result in his suspension. A receipt, bearing the signature "L. McCaffrey" was received by the Grievance Committee. To date, the respondent has not answered either complaint, nor has he requested additional time in which to do so.
In a supporting affirmation, Counsel for the Grievance Committee advises that on or about July 23, 2012, she telephoned the respondent at his home and left a message with his wife, Lisa McCaffrey, for the respondent to return her call. On November 14, 2012, Counsel made a second telephone call and left the same message for the respondent to call. Ms. McCaffrey advised Counsel that she had given all of the Grievance Committee's correspondence to the respondent, and she further advised that she did not have contact information for him and had only sporadic contact with her husband. To date, the Grievance Committee has received no communication from the respondent.
Although served with a copy of the motion, and granted an adjournment to serve a response, the respondent failed to submit any papers.
Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i), pending further order of this Court, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against him, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.
ENG, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and DILLON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court