Opinion
M–3095
09-25-2018
In the MATTER OF Thomas A. BLUMENTHAL, (admitted as Thomas Alan Blumenthal), a suspended attorney: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Thomas A. Blumenthal, Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Kathy W. Parrino, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Kathy W. Parrino, of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Rosalyn H. Richter, Sallie Manzanet–Daniels, Richard T. Andrias, Justices.
PER CURIAMRespondent Thomas Blumenthal was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on December 23, 1968, under the name Thomas Alan Blumenthal. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained a business address in New Jersey where he also was admitted to practice law. The Attorney Grievance Committee seeks an order, pursuant to the doctrine of reciprocal discipline as set forth in the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13, disbarring respondent predicated upon discipline imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court. Respondent has not appeared herein.
In the New Jersey proceeding, respondent stipulated to the relevant facts establishing that he, inter alia, misappropriated client funds to pay for personal and unrelated business expenses, and covered the ensuing shortfalls by invading funds received for specific transactions to pay for disbursements in other matters. The New Jersey Supreme Court disbarred respondent from the practice of law for violating New Jersey RPC 1.15(a) by knowingly misappropriating funds designated for one real estate transaction to pay for disbursements in another, as well as RPC 1.8(a), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) for improper business transactions, and engaging in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and that was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Respondent's conduct violates New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and warrants disbarment, notwithstanding any intent to replace the funds or that they were repaid ( Matter of Bloomberg, 154 A.D.3d 75, 60 N.Y.S.3d 143 [1st Dept. 2017] ; Matter of Livingston, 133 A.D.3d 1, 17 N.Y.S.3d 111 [1st Dept. 2015] ; Matter of Freimark, 243 A.D.2d 104, 675 N.Y.S.2d 26 [1st Dept. 1998] ). Moreover, significant weight should be given to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction where the misconduct occurred because the foreign jurisdiction has the greatest interest in fashioning sanctions for misconduct (Matter of Jaffe, 78 A.D.3d 152, 908 N.Y.S.2d 623 [1st Dept. 2010] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, should be granted and respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of New York.
Ordered that the motion is granted, and respondent is disbarred from the practice of law in the State of New York, and until further order of this Court.
All concur.