Opinion
Motion No. 2022-00220 Attorney Registration No. 4100061
06-03-2022
In the Matter of Peter A. Saad, Jr., admitted as Peter Anthony Saad, Jr., an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Peter A. Saad, Jr., respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DECISION
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J. MARK C. DILLON COLLEEN D. DUFFY BETSY BARROS PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION
Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District to immediately suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 and 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, and pursuant to 1240.9(c) to refer the issues raised to a Special Referee, to hear and report. Separate motion by the Grievance Committee to deem as established charges of professional misconduct set forth in a verified petition dated January 13, 2022, upon the respondent's default in filing an answer, and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court may deem appropriate. Cross motion by the respondent pursuant to CPLR § 2004 to extend the time to serve and file an answer. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on January 22, 2003, under the name Peter Anthony Saad, Jr. The above-entitled proceeding was commenced pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8 by the service and filing of a notice of petition and verified petition, both dated January 13, 2022.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motions and the cross motion, and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion to immediately suspend the respondent from the practice of law, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 and 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, and pursuant to 1240.9(c) to refer the issues raised to a Special Referee, to hear and report, is granted, the motion to deem the charges established is denied, and the cross motion is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), the respondent, Peter A. Saad, Jr., admitted as Peter Anthony Saad, Jr., 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, Peter A. Saad, Jr., admitted as Peter Anthony Saad, Jr., shall promptly comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); 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, Peter A. Saad, Jr., admitted as Peter Anthony Saad, Jr., 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 if the respondent, Peter A. Saad, Jr., admitted as Peter Anthony Saad, Jr., 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); and it is further, ORDERED that the answer dated March 22, 2022, annexed to the cross motion papers, is deemed timely served and filed; and it is further, ORDERED that the issues raised are referred to Honorable Lance D. Clarke, c/o Cooke & Clarke, 250 Nassau Blvd., 2nd Floor, Garden City, NY 11530, as Special Referee, to hear and report, with the hearing to be completed within 60 days of the date of this decision and order on motion, or as soon thereafter as practicable, and the report, which contains the Special Referee's findings on the issues and charges, to be submitted within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda.
We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based on the respondent's failure to comply with judicial subpoenas and his failure to cooperate with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District in connection with two investigations of the respondent's professional conduct.
By letter dated November 9, 2021, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that it had commenced an investigation based upon a complaint filed by Eric J. Kirk, alleging, inter alia, that he retained the respondent in three matters, and that the respondent neglected the matters, misrepresented the status of the matters, improperly retained funds, and refused to turn over his file to Kirk's new counsel. The respondent was asked to submit a written answer to the allegations within 10 days of his receipt of the letter and warned that his "unexcused failure to timely respond or otherwise properly cooperate in this matter constitute[d] professional misconduct' independent of the merits of the complaint and [would] be treated accordingly by the [Grievance] Committee." The respondent failed to submit an answer to the Kirk complaint or request additional time to do so.
By letter dated November 17, 2021, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent that it had commenced an investigation based upon a complaint filed by Heather Lucca, an attorney, alleging, inter alia, that a check for $14,500 issued from the respondent's escrow account representing partial return of a down payment to Lucca's clients was dishonored. The respondent also falsely informed Lucca that he had wired her the funds to replace the dishonored check. Additionally, the parties to the real estate transaction agreed that the respondent was to return an additional $15,000 of the down payment to Lucca's clients, within two business days, and he failed to do so. The respondent was asked to submit a written answer to these allegations within 10 days of his receipt of the letter and warned again that his "unexcused failure to timely respond or otherwise properly cooperate in this matter constitute[d] professional misconduct' independent of the merits of the complaint and [would] be treated accordingly by the [Grievance] Committee." The respondent failed to submit an answer to the Lucca complaint or request additional time to do so.
On November 24, 2021, the respondent was personally served with a judicial subpoena and a judicial subpoena duces tecum, both dated November 18, 2021. The judicial subpoena ordered the respondent to appear before the Grievance Committee at its office on December 2, 2021, for an examination under oath (EUO). The judicial subpoena duces tecum ordered the respondent to produce his files for the three Kirk matters, and his file and bank records pertaining to the real estate matter in the Lucca complaint, by December 2, 2021. The respondent failed to appear at the Grievance Committee's office on December 2, 2021, and he failed to produce the subpoenaed records.
On December 6, 2021, the Grievance Committee received a letter from the respondent dated November 29, 2021, postmarked December 2, 2021 stating that he received the subpoenas on the evening before Thanksgiving and that he had left town for the holidays, returning on November 29, 2021. The respondent indicated that he was unable to obtain all the documents necessary for the appearance, was unavailable on December 2, 2021, and despite his "hectic" schedule, he could make himself available on December 13, 2021, in the afternoon, among other dates.
By letter dated December 6, 2021, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent that his EUO was rescheduled to December 13, 2021, that no further adjournments or accommodations would be made, and that he was required to produce the records indicated in the judicial subpoena duces tecum on or before December 8, 2021. On December 13, 2021, the respondent failed to appear before the Grievance Committee, and he never produced any records in compliance with the judicial subpoena duces tecum.
In opposing the motion, inter alia, for his interim suspension, the respondent stated that he never received the Grievance Committee's December 6, 2021 letter adjourning the deadline to produce the records and the date to conduct the EUO. The respondent asserted that he was "more than willing to provide any necessary documents and appear for [an EUO]." However, the respondent did not assert that he checked with the Grievance Committee to determine if it responded to his adjournment request or that he made any other attempts to reschedule his EUO or produce any records, which are still outstanding, including his escrow account statements.
Based on the foregoing, the respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), pending further order of this Court, and the matter is referred to a Special Referee, to hear and report.
LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.