Opinion
Motion No. 2024-00297 Case No. 2024-00390
05-23-2024
In the Matter of Chadwick L. Hooker, An Attorney and Counselor-at-Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Chadwick L. Hooker (Admitted as Chadwick Lamar Hooker) (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 5458419), Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Naomi F. Goldstein, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Naomi F. Goldstein, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se.
Jeffrey K. Oing,J.P., Lizbeth González Martin Shulman Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke Kelly O'Neill Levy, JJ.
PER CURIAM
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Chadwick L. Hooker, was admitted, as Chadwick Lamar Hooker, to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Third Judicial Department on July 14, 2016.
Respondent Chadwick L. Hooker was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on July 14, 2016, under the name Chadwick Lamar Hooker. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Attorney Grievance Committee (the Committee) seeks an order pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(3) immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of the Court, based upon respondent's failure to comply with the Committee's direction to provide a written response to the complaint and respondent's repeated failure to comply with the Committee's lawful demands.
In December 2022, the Committee received a complaint from one of respondent's clients reporting that in February 2022, the client had retained respondent to represent her in a landlord-tenant holdover proceeding against a tenant and that the client had paid respondent $2000 as a retainer. However, the client stated that respondent neglected the matter and repeatedly misrepresented its status, leading her to terminate his representation. The client reported that she had yet to receive return of her retainer.
On January 17, 2023, the Committee emailed the complaint to respondent at his email address on file with the Office of Court Administration and asked that he respond within 20 days. After respondent failed to do so, the Committee called him, and he provided a new email address. On July 7, 2023, the Committee emailed respondent the complaint and a cover letter, requesting that he answer the complaint within 20 days. Respondent did not do so. On July 28, 2023, the Committee emailed respondent a second time, requesting that he respond to the complaint within 10 days. Respondent again did not do so. On August 16, 2023, the Committee called respondent and asked about his failure to answer the complaint. Respondent informed the Committee that he would submit his answer by the following Friday, August 25, 2023. Once again, respondent did not do so. On August 29, 2023, the Committee again called respondent, who was not available. The staff attorney for the Committee left a message with the receptionist for respondent to call back. Respondent did not return the phone call. On October 23, 2023, the Committee again emailed respondent and sent a letter by priority mail to both is home and his office, requesting that he respond to the complaint on or before November 2, 2023. The letter sent to respondent's office was returned, however, the letter sent to his home address was not, and the Committee's email did not bounce back. Nevertheless, respondent did not respond to any of those communications.
On November 27, 2023, the Committee served a subpoena duces tecum on respondent by email, requiring that he produce a copy of his client file and any records related to his representation of his client, on or before December 11, 2023. The subpoena stated, in bold type, "Personal appearance IS NOT required." On December 11, 2023, respondent appeared in person at the Committee's office, but did not bring any paperwork with him. The Committee informed respondent that he should retain counsel, if he wished, and that counsel should file an answer on his behalf by December 22, 2023.
On December 26, 2023, the Committee emailed respondent and asked that he respond by January 3, 2024. Respondent did not do so and, as of January 18, 2024, respondent had yet to respond to the Committee's numerous communications and requests and had yet to file a written response to the complaint.
The Committee now moves for respondent's interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) based on respondent's failure to respond to the Committee's numerous requests for respondent to answer the complaint filed against him and his failure to comply with the Committee's lawful demands.
22 NYCRR 1240.9 provides, in pertinent part:
"(a) A respondent may be suspended from practice on an interim basis
during the pendency of an investigation or proceeding on application or motion of a Committee... upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest. Such finding may be based upon:
"(3) the respondent's failure to comply with a lawful demand of the Court or a Committee in an investigation or proceeding under these Rules[.]"
The Committee has sustained its burden and presented sufficient evidence for this Court to immediately suspend respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) based upon his repeated failure to respond to the Committee's numerous requests that he answer the complaint, sent by mail and email, and his failure to comply with the Committee's subpoena requiring him to produce his records concerning his representation of his client. Respondent's failure to comply with the Committee's lawful demands constitutes conduct immediately threatening the public interest, warranting his immediate suspension from the practice of law (see Matter of Meettook, 206 A.D.3d 9 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Fox, 197 A.D.3d 36 [1st Dept 2021]; Matter of Meltzer, 189 A.D.3d 80 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Shapiro, 177 A.D.3d 28 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Matic, 165 A.D.3d 45 [1st Dept 2018]).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3), effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.
All concur.
It is Ordered that the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for immediate suspension, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) is granted and respondent Chadwick L. Hooker, admitted as Chadwick Lamar Hooker, is suspended from the practice of law effective immediately, and until the further order of this Court; and
It is further Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, respondent Chadwick L. Hooker, admitted as Chadwick Lamar Hooker, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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 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 respondent Chadwick L. Hooker, admitted as Chadwick Lamar Hooker, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 240.15), which are made a part hereof; and, It is further Ordered that if the respondent Chadwick L. Hooker, admitted as Chadwick Lamar Hooker, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned to the issuing agency forthwith.