Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Antonucci

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

May 2, 2014

MATTER OF DAVID P. ANTONUCCI, AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER

Editorial Note:

This decision is subject to revision before publication in the New York reporter.

This Pagination of this case accurately reflects the pagination of the original published, though it may appears out of sequence.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ.

OPINION

Page 111

OPINION AND ORDER

Order of suspension entered.

Per Curiam:

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on January 14, 1988, and maintains an office in Watertown. The Grievance Committee filed a petition alleging eight charges of misconduct against respondent, including neglecting client matters and making misrepresentations to clients regarding the status of their matters. Respondent filed an answer admitting the charges and setting forth matters in mitigation. Respondent thereafter appeared before this Court and was heard in mitigation.

Respondent admits that, from 2010 through 2012, he neglected several client matters, failed to respond to inquiries from several clients concerning their matters and made misrepresentations to certain clients regarding the status of their matters. Respondent additionally admits that he failed to provide a client in a domestic relations matter with a written retainer agreement and itemized billing statements at regular intervals and, in a separate matter, he failed to refund unearned legal fees to a client in a prompt manner. Respondent further admits that, in early 2012, he failed to notify a client that he had received settlement proceeds belonging to the client in the amount of $10,000. Respondent admits that he deposited only half of the settlement proceeds into his trust account and, for several months thereafter, he failed to respond to numerous [984 N.Y.S.2d 742] inquiries from the client regarding the funds. Respondent admits that, in July 2012, he remitted to the client funds in the amount of $5,000 and, at that time, the client was advised that the settlement proceeds were not available sooner because of a cash

Page 112

flow problem at respondent's law office. Respondent admits that, in October 2012, he issued to the client a billing statement indicating that, in February 2012, respondent had remitted to himself funds in the amount of $5,000 in payment of outstanding legal fees in relation to the matter. Finally, respondent admits that he failed to respond promptly and completely to requests for information from the Grievance Committee during its investigation.

We conclude that respondent has violated the following Rules of Professional Conduct:

rule 1.3 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client;

rule 1.3 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him;

rule 1.4 (a) (2) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- failing to consult with a client in a reasonable manner about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;

rule 1.4 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter;

rule 1.4 (a) (4) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- failing to comply in a prompt manner with a client's reasonable requests for information;

rule 1.5 (b) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- failing to communicate to a client within a reasonable time the scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee for which the client will be responsible;

rule 1.5 (d) (5) (ii) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- entering into an arrangement for, charging or collecting a fee in a domestic relations matter without a written retainer agreement signed by the lawyer and client setting forth in plain language the nature of the relationship and the details of the fee arrangement;

rule 1.15 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- misappropriating client funds and commingling client funds with personal funds;

rule 1.15 (c) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.0) -- failing to notify a client in a prompt manner of the receipt of funds, securities, or other properties in which the client has an interest;

rule ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.