From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Scharf (In re Scharf)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 25, 2021
193 A.D.3d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

Motion No. 2020-04115 Case No. 2020-04962

01-25-2021

In the MATTER OF Leslie H. SCHARF (admitted as Leslie Harris Scharf), an attorney and counselor-at law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Leslie H. Scharf (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2587277), Respondent.

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. Victor J. Rocco, Esq., for respondent.


Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.

Victor J. Rocco, Esq., for respondent.

Rolando T. Acosta, P.J., Cynthia S. Kern, Jeffrey K. Oing, Manuel J. Mendez, Martin Shulman, JJ.

Per Curiam Respondent Leslie H. Scharf was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on January 26, 1994, under the name Leslie Harris Scharf. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained his principal place of business within the First Judicial Department.

On September 3, 2020, respondent entered a plea of guilty in Supreme Court, New York County, to grand larceny in the first degree ( Penal Law 155.42 ), a class B felony. During the plea proceeding respondent admitted that, between 2006 and 2019, he was employed as general counsel and senior vice president of Ellison Systems, Inc., d/b/a Shoplet, and between May 26, 2013 and July 22, 2019, without permission or authority to do so, he transferred in excess of $5.9 million from Shoplet's PayPal accounts to PayPal accounts in his own name, using those funds for personal purposes.

On October 8, 2020, respondent was sentenced to an indeterminant term of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years. Respondent provided restitution in the amount of approximately $1.45 to $1.5 million dollars, and there is a civil judgment against him for $6.8 million.

The Attorney Grievance Committee now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(4)(a) and (b), and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.12(c)(1), on the ground that he was convicted of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law 90(4)(e), and has therefore been automatically disbarred. Respondent's counsel was served with this motion but has not submitted a response.

The Committee correctly asserts that respondent's conviction of the New York felony of grand larceny in the first degree is a basis for automatic disbarment pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(4)(a), which provides: "[a]ny person being an attorney and counsellor-at-law who shall be convicted of a felony as defined in paragraph (e) of this subdivision, shall upon such conviction, cease to be an attorney and counsellor-at-law, or to be competent to practice law as such." Judiciary Law 90(4)(e) sets forth, in pertinent part, "[f]or purposes of this subdivision, the term felony shall mean any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state ...." Upon such conviction, "there may be presented to the appellate division of the supreme court a certified or exemplified copy of the judgment of such conviction, and thereupon the name of the person so convicted shall, by order of the court, be struck from the roll of attorneys" ( Judiciary Law 90[4][b] ).

Accordingly, as respondent's conviction of grand larceny in the first degree constitutes grounds for disbarment, we grant the Committee's motion and strike his name from the rolls pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(4)(b) and 22 NYCRR § 1240.12(c)(1), nunc pro tunc to September 3, 2020 (see Matter of Ogihara, 121 A.D.3d 47, 989 N.Y.S.2d 853 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Matter of Arntsen, 106 A.D.3d 17, 960 N.Y.S.2d 640 [1st Dept. 2013] ).

All concur. It is Ordered that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department is granted, and pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) and 22 NYCRR § 1240.12(c)(1), respondent, Leslie H. Scharf, (admitted as Leslie Harris Scharf), is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective nunc pro tunc to September 3, 2020, and

It is further Ordered that respondent, Leslie H. Scharf, (admitted as Leslie Harris Scharf), is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another; that respondent is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board or commission or other public authority; that respondent is forbidden to give another opinion as to the law or its application or advice in relation thereto, and

It is further Ordered that respondent, Leslie H. Scharf, (admitted as Leslie Harris Scharf), is directed to fully comply with the provisions of the Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15 ), which is made a part hereof, and

It is further Ordered that if respondent, Leslie H. Scharf, (admitted as Leslie Harris Scharf), 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 1240.15(f).


Summaries of

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Scharf (In re Scharf)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jan 25, 2021
193 A.D.3d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Scharf (In re Scharf)

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF Leslie H. SCHARF (admitted as Leslie Harris Scharf), an…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jan 25, 2021

Citations

193 A.D.3d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
193 A.D.3d 118

Citing Cases

In re Kossoff

Respondent's conviction is a proper predicate for automatic disbarment under 22 NYCRR 1240.12 (c)(1),…

In re Kossoff

Respondent's conviction is a proper predicate for automatic disbarment under 22 NYCRR 1240.12 (c)(1),…