Matter of Wolf

The petition contains eight charges of escrow-related professional misconduct. The respondent maintained an escrow account at Citibank, titled "Jason M. Wolf, Attorney at Law Attorney Trust Accountâ​​IOLA," with an account number ending in 5498 (hereinafter the escrow account).

Charge one alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). Between on or about August 1, 2020, and August 31, 2022, the respondent deposited approximately $751,802.49 in personal funds into his escrow account, consisting of his earned legal fees, New York State unemployment insurance benefits, federal government economic impact stimulus payments, gambling winnings, brokerage account sales, and loans against life insurance policies. During this same time period, the respondent disbursed approximately $590,011.08 from his escrow account for personal transactions, which included, among others, approximately (1) 288 disbursements for gambling wagers, (2) 223 disbursements for meals and entertainment, (3) 165 disbursements to Presto Experts (used by the respondent for online psychic and medium services), (4) 73 disbursements to family/friends, and (5) 59 disbursements to TD Ameritrade.

Charge two alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rules 8.4(c) and (d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, respectively. The respondent admitted that he used his escrow account to shield personal funds from creditors. He explained that when he would open a personal account, it was garnished and he would "lose" his money. He therefore began depositing his personal funds into his escrow account in order to keep the balance of his personal account low to avoid garnishment. As of October 3, 2023, the respondent had nine unsatisfied liens and judgments, the majority of which were from the Internal Revenue Service but also included debts to the State of New York, a credit collections agency, and a bank. These liens and judgments were dated between 2011 and 2022 and totaled $217,577.

Charge three alleged that the respondent misappropriated funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary, incident to his practice of law, in violation of rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On or about March 22, 2022, the respondent deposited $4,350 in fiduciary funds into his escrow account, related to his representation of Jeannie C. Jinete, to cover expected litigation costs. By March 25, 2022, without any disbursements in the Jinete matter, the balance in the respondent's escrow account was $3,948.74, a deficiency of $401.26. On or about March 30, 2022, an additional deposit in the amount of $4,360 was made into the escrow account in relation to the Jinete matter, raising the total funds required to be held for this matter to $8,710. However, on March 31, 2022, without any disbursements in the Jinete matter, the balance in the respondent's escrow account was $6,685.41, a deficiency of $2,024.59. Thereafter, the escrow account was routinely below the amount that the respondent was required to maintain for the Jinete matter, including as low as $112.51, which caused a deficiency of $8,597.49 in the Jinete matter. Charge four alleged that the respondent commingled personal funds with funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law, in violation of rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. At the time that the Jinete funds were on deposit in the escrow account, personal funds belonging to the respondent were also on deposit therein. Charge five alleged that the respondent made improper disbursements from his escrow account, in violation of rule 1.15(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Between on or about August 1, 2020, and August 31, 2022, the respondent made approximately 86 cash withdrawals, and approximately 680 withdrawals using PayPal, a third-party electronic fund service, from his escrow account.

Charge six alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On or about October 28, 2020, $5.99 was disbursed from the escrow account for "ACH DEBIT PAYPAL INST XFER VIDEO."

Charge seven alleged that, between on or about August 1, 2020, and August 31, 2022, the respondent failed to maintain a ledger book or similar record for his escrow account, in violation of rule 1.15(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Charge eight alleged that the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, based on the factual specifications contained in charges two through seven of the petition.

In the respondent's answer, he admitted all of the factual specifications of charges one and five and most of the factual specifications of charge two but denied the conclusions of law contained in these three charges. He denied charges three, four, six, and eight in their entirety and admitted charge seven in its entirety. The Hearing and the Hearing Record

The Grievance Committee commenced its investigation of the respondent upon receipt of a letter from the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, providing notice that four ACH transactions totaling $5,700 from the respondent's escrow account had been returned due to insufficient funds on August 1, 2022. The respondent later explained that these were

"gaming transactions . . . [of] fantasy sports or gambling." The respondent also provided evidence that these transactions were returned due to bank error and stated essentially that he did not initially disclose his gambling problem to the Grievance Committee because he believed once the Grievance Committee verified that the returned transactions were not based on his misconduct, the investigation would end.

The respondent explained that he had been addicted to gambling since he was a child and grew up in an environment in which gambling was prevalent and encouraged. He stated the following at his hearing: "every action that I took that was improper was because of a gambling addiction, which I fully admit to. I have a disease [that] is no different than alcohol or drugs." He asserted that he gambled in part to continue the "high" of excitement that he got from his intense law practice and that he lived in two separate worlds that never intersected: one in which he was a successful lawyer and the other in which he was a dysfunctional addict. He stated that because of his substantial debts, bank accounts

2

associated with his social security number were garnished and restrained beginning in about 2016. The respondent had trouble meeting his daily financial needs and was eventually unable to have a credit card. Before he was barred from holding a credit card, he gambled on credit and settled the credit card bills for a fraction of their worth. He claimed that, in order to "live" and to care for his minor daughter, he began using his escrow account to deposit personal funds and shield them from creditors. He paid nearly all of the expenses of his daily life from his escrow account, including charges to an investment account that was linked to his escrow account, various online gambling companies, car services, media streaming services, online event ticketing businesses, online shopping websites, car insurance companies, food delivery applications, gaming websites, toll payment accounts, the school that his daughter attended (for tuition), and his life insurance policy. These withdrawals included automatic monthly payments paid from the escrow account and checks written to himself which he cashed in order to pay personal expenses. Although the respondent admitted his substantial unpaid taxes and testified to actions that amounted to misappropriation, he claimed that he only gambled his own money, never client funds, that he was the only entity hurt by his actions, and that he did not use his escrow account as an escrow account. According to the respondent, he funded his escrow account with legal fees, gambling winnings, loans against his personal life insurance policy, and salary payments from his law firm. In relation to charge three and the Jinete matter, the record reflects that in March 2022, the respondent deposited $14,350 into his escrow account, $10,000 for his legal fees and $4,350 to cover litigation costs, including an expert witness fee. The respondent stated that, when the case partially settled and no expert witness was needed, he and Jinete agreed that the $4,350 would be used to continue the litigation as to certain codefendants. Jinete paid the respondent an additional $4,360 in order to cover a separate expert witness fee. While the respondent suggested that he held these funds to offset his trial fee if settlement as to all parties was not reached, he did not explain how his escrow balance fell to $6,685.41, prior to disbursing any funds for the Jinete matter. With regard to charge six, the respondent testified that while he was the only signatory on his escrow account, the $5.99 that was disbursed from the escrow account for "ACH DEBIT PAYPAL INST XFER VIDEO" was an example of his

"stepsons" ordering a movie on the respondent's Amazon account, which was linked to his escrow account. The respondent acknowledged that he did not keep any type of escrow ledger, hire a bookkeeper, or reconcile his escrow account. Although the respondent admitted that retainer agreements were required for many of his clients, he failed to provide such agreements to many of his clients or to give them letters of engagement. With regard to the judgments and collections matters against the respondent, he testified to the tax liens but also indicated that his car was repossessed, and there was a collections matter against him from an appellate printer and a judgment against him for thousands of dollars based upon a purported E-Z Pass error. The respondent testified that he filed his taxes but failed to pay them because he had gambled away the money. He acknowledged that shielding his income in order to avoid paying his taxes was a violation of professional rules. He also admitted that in 2014, his mother and his grandmother died in close succession, and he inherited more than $1 million. Instead of using his inheritance to address his tax arrears, in his grief, he gambled away the inheritance. The respondent testified that he had not received a client complaint in more than 20 years until the instant investigation and that his clients were not "affected by [his] gambling addiction." He acknowledged that the Grievance Committee received a complaint against him subsequent to the instant investigation but claimed that the complainant eventually retained other counsel and was unharmed by the respondent's conduct. The respondent expressed his remorse for his misconduct and his embarrassment with regard to his addiction and related misconduct. He testified that he had been in treatment with an addiction specialist, beginning in April 2021, which had helped him to stop gambling. The respondent claimed that he also had tried Gamblers Anonymous, which did not work for him. He asserted that the Grievance Committee's initial letter as part of its investigation served as a wake up call to him to address his addiction, and that, without it, he would have continued to gamble. He characterized the instant proceeding as being the first time that his "personal addiction crossed over into [his] professional life." The respondent testified that he no longer had a desire to gamble and that he had learned his lesson.

The Special Referee's Report

The Special Referee sustained all eight charges in the petition and found that the respondent clearly intended to avoid paying his debts by shielding his personal funds in his escrow account. The Special Referee also found that it was

"evident that the [r]espondent exercised an unethical and devious process of avoiding creditor claims, while continuing to gamble funds that came into his possession," and stated that "[w]hile the [r]espondent argued that his gambling addiction is a disease no different from alcoholism or drug addiction, I am not convinced that he has taken all of the appropriate steps necessary to ensure that gambling does not interfere with his responsibilities in the future." The Special Referee noted the respondent's claim that he had been free of his addiction for more than two years. By notice of motion dated February 24, 2025, the respondent moves to be immediately reinstated to the practice of law, based on the Special Referee's failure to make a sanction recommendation, and to dismiss the petition, arguing that the Grievance Committee failed to promptly take any action in this matter. The Grievance Committee opposes the motion. By notice of motion and an affirmation, both dated April 7, 2025, the Grievance Committee moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as this Court deems just and proper. The Grievance Committee reports that the respondent has no disciplinary history.

The respondent submits an affidavit opposing the Grievance Committee's motion and asking that this Court hold the Grievance Committee's motion in abeyance until his motion is decided. The respondent expresses dissatisfaction with the Special Referee's report, reasserts that he never converted clients funds or harmed any client and notes that he has been suspended for one year and has been gambling-free for almost three years. He asks that this Court find that the time he has been suspended pursuant to his interim suspension is sufficient and, therefore, that it not impose an additional suspension. The Grievance Committee submits a reply to the respondent's affidavit, arguing against several of the respondent's contentions and asserting that the respondent has failed to accept responsibility for, or acknowledge, the seriousness of his misconduct.

3

Findings and Conclusion In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing and the respondent's admissions, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained all eight charges. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted. The respondent's motion [*3]to be immediately reinstated to the practice of law and to dismiss the petition is denied. In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we have considered in mitigation, inter alia, the respondent's candor with regard to his gambling addiction and his debts and his remorse, as well as his limited evidence with regard to his treatment of his addiction. However, we have also considered the respondent's failure to take full responsibility for his misconduct by continuing to assert that he did not misappropriate client funds and his failure to recognize the import of his misconduct, maintaining that his personal issues never crossed over into his professional life, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. We are further concerned by the respondent's misuse of the privilege he held as an attorney to maintain an escrow account to shield his personal funds from the payment of more than $200,000 in tax arrears and other debt. The respondent failed to acknowledge the public harm stemming from his actions or to provide evidence of any attempt to address his tax arrears despite purportedly being free of gambling for at least three years.

We note that "[a] disciplinary proceeding is concerned with fitness to practice law, not punishment," and "[t]he primary concern of a disciplinary proceeding is the protection of the public in its reliance on the integrity and responsibility of the legal profession" (Matter of Fleischman, 218 AD3d 34, 40 [internal quotation marks omitted]). We therefore find that disbarment is warranted.

LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and WAN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the respondent's motion to be immediately reinstated to the practice of law and to dismiss the petition is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Jason M. Wolf, a suspended attorney, is disbarred, effective immediately, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Jason M. Wolf, a suspended attorney, shall continue to 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, effective immediately, the respondent, Jason M. Wolf, a suspended attorney, shall continue 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 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, Jason M. Wolf, a suspended attorney, 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).

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court

4