ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), the respondent, Joanne Stabile, 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, Joanne Stabile, shall 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, Joanne Stabile, 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 herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that if the respondent, Joanne Stabile, 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 her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f); and it is further,
ORDERED that the issues raised are referred to the Honorable Sandra L. Sgroi, 320 Lake Avenue, St. James, New York 11780, 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.
Discussion
We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based, inter alia, on the respondent's failure to comply with the Grievance Committee's judicial subpoenas duces tecum and with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee in connection with an investigation of her
1
misconduct, and the uncontroverted evidence that the respondent still holds estate funds for an estate she no longer represents, and for which she has not produced complete account records.
In August 2016, Paul Perkins (hereinafter "Perkins") retained the respondent, inter alia, to provide legal services in connection with the administration of two related estates (hereinafter the "Alfred Estate" and the "Abbott Estate") in the Surrogate's Court, New York County. By email to the respondent dated March 30, 2022, Perkins noted that he still awaited completion of the respondent's work nearly five years after retaining the respondent and asked that she call or email him to advise him what needed to be done to complete the work. By emails dated August 22, 2022, and September 13, 2022, Perkins followed up with the respondent and received no response. As of April 2023, the respondent had failed to complete the administration of the estates and, based on the records of the Surrogate's Court, New York County, the respondent's last action with the court in each matter occurred in 2017. By letter dated April 24, 2023, Perkins advised the respondent that he was terminating her services and requested that the respondent provide any files or documents she had that pertained to his cases, along with a final bill. When the respondent continued to be unresponsive to Perkins, he filed a complaint with the Grievance Committee. By letter dated June 23, 2023, the Grievance Committee informed the respondent that an investigation had been commenced based on the complaint of Perkins, who maintained that the respondent had failed to diligently pursue certain estate administrations on his behalf and was failing to communicate with him. The Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit a written answer within ten days of her receipt of the June 23, 2023 letter and advised the respondent that her unexcused failure to timely respond or otherwise properly cooperate in the matter would constitute professional misconduct independent of the merits of the complaint and would be treated accordingly by the Grievance Committee.
The respondent requested and received extensions to July 24, 2023, and then to July 31, 2023, but failed to submit an answer to the Perkins complaint. By letter dated August 7, 2023, and email dated August 23, 2023, requests were sent to the respondent directing her to submit a response to the Perkins complaint and reminding her that her failure to timely respond or otherwise cooperate would constitute professional misconduct independent of the underlying complaint. After requesting and receiving two additional extensions, the respondent ultimately submitted a response on September 13, 2023. By letter dated July 23, 2024, sent by USPS first class mail and electronic mail, the respondent was directed to provide additional information by August 6, 2024. By letter dated August 16, 2024, sent by USPS first class mail and electronic mail, the respondent was again directed to submit a response and further reminded of her obligation to do so.
Having received no response, on September 5, 2024, the Grievance Committee personally served the respondent with two judicial subpoenas to compel the respondent to testify at an examination under oath (hereinafter "EUO") and to produce documents, inter alia, regarding the Perkins complaint. After being granted another adjournment, the respondent appeared for her EUO on October 15, 2024, but failed to provide the requested documents. At the EUO, the respondent testified that she continued to hold, in a Client Benefit Trust Account for which she was the sole signatory, approximately $500,000 regarding the Alfred Estate and an unspecified amount concerning the Abbott Estate. During the EUO, the respondent was directed to provide additional information, including the bookkeeping records for the Client Benefit Trust Account, by October 29, 2024. She failed to do so. By letter dated November 4, 2024, sent by USPS first class mail and electronic mail, the Grievance Committee again directed that the respondent provide within 10 days the previously requested information. The letter further advised the respondent that "[p]ursuant to Section 1240.9 of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR part 1240), [the] Committee is authorized to seek the immediate suspension from practice of an attorney who fails to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation."
The respondent failed to timely respond to the November 4, 2024 letter. On November 13, 2024, a follow up electronic mail was sent to the respondent reminding her of the outstanding reply. As of the date of the petition, the respondent had failed to provide a response to the July 23, 2024 and August 16, 2024 letters or to produce the additional documents requested at the EUO and had not provided an explanation for her failure to do so, and likewise had failed to provide an explanation for her failure to comply with the Grievance Committee's September 5, 2024 judicial subpoenas duces tecum.
In response to the Grievance Committee's 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), the respondent states that she suffers from a variety of mental health conditions that "routinely overwhelmed her," conditions that were exacerbated by her assuming near exclusive responsibility for her firm's client matters and administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent attributes to her overwhelmed state her lack of responsiveness and diligence, first to her client Perkins, and then to the Grievance Committee. The respondent notes her intention to retire and contends that an interim suspension would impede her winding down her firm. The respondent expresses her willingness, with the aid of counsel, to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's ongoing investigation and indicates her willingness to tender the funds in the Client Benefit Trust Account to the administrator of the Abbott Estate, to deposit them with the Court, or to turn them over in any manner that the Grievance Committee and/or this Court see fit.
Conclusion
We find that the Grievance Committee has sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent poses an immediate threat to the public interest based, inter alia, on the respondent's failure to comply with the Grievance Committee's September 5, 2024 judicial subpoenas duces tecum and with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee in connection with an investigation of her misconduct, and the uncontroverted evidence that the respondent still holds estate funds for an estate she no longer represents and for which she has not produced complete account records.
2
Based on the foregoing, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted, 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 LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
3