Opinion
M-3604
October 29, 2002.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, as Eden Donald Bernard Shaw, was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on July 25, 1990.
Judith N. Stein, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel) for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Buckley, Lerner, Marlow, Gonzalez, JJ.
Respondent Eden D. Shaw was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on July 25, 1990, as Eden Donald Bernard Shaw. Respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department at all times relevant to these proceedings.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee has moved for an order immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1)(i) and (iii) due to his willful failure to cooperate with the Committee's investigation and based upon uncontested evidence of professional misconduct which threatens the public interest.
The Committee commenced its investigation in July 2000 having received a complaint that respondent failed to disburse down payment monies at a client's closing in the amount of $12,500, which respondent held in an escrow account. Despite notification of the complaint and repeated requests to answer the complaint, respondent has failed or refused to address the substantive issues raised by the complaint, or to locate and provide relevant documents. Respondent has not submitted any opposition to the instant suspension motion. As a result of his failure to cooperate with the Committee's investigation and the uncontested allegations of misconduct involving his former client's escrowed funds, it can be concluded that respondent's conduct "evinces shocking disregard for the judicial system, and can only be interpreted as a deliberate and willful effort to impede the investigation" (Matter of Rennie, 260 A.D.2d 132, 135), warranting his immediate suspension from the practice of law (see,Matter of Landers, 250 A.D.2d 17).
Accordingly, the petition for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e)(1)(i) and (iii) should be granted, and respondent suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Committee have been concluded, and until further order of this Court.