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 Moreno

Supreme Court of New York, First Department

March 9, 2017

In the Matter of Carlos Moreno, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Carlos Moreno, Respondent.

         Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Carlos Moreno, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on April 13, 1992.

          Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Remi E. Shea, of counsel), for petitioner.

          Respondent pro se.

          John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick Richard T. Andrias Marcy L. Kahn Ellen Gesmer, Justices.

          PER CURIAM

         Respondent Carlos Moreno was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on April 13, 1992. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he has maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Department.

         The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (now the Attorney Grievance Committee) moves for an order under former 22 NYCRR 603.4(e)(1) immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law, until further order of the Court, based on respondent's conduct of, among other things, failing to comply with a lawful demand of the Court and the Committee. Specifically, respondent has failed to comply, for over three years, with the Committee's demands to inspect his tax returns, including demands made by judicial subpoena.

         The Committee began its investigation into respondent's conduct when it was informed in 2011 by the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection that a check in the amount of $4, 699.46 and an electronic payment in the amount of $240.75, both drawn against respondent's IOLA account, were dishonored due to insufficient funds. By letters dated January 12, 2011 and August 11, 2011, respondent informed the Committee that both of these disbursements were the result of his inadvertently using his IOLA account instead of his business account. Respondent provided the Committee with his IOLA account statements and canceled checks for November 2010 through March 2011. He also completed an Excel spreadsheet prepared by the Committee's investigative accountant, which summarized his account transactions during this period.

         Respondent's account records raised further suspicions by the Committee that he had been using his IOLA account improperly. In a letter dated February 15, 2013, the Committee directed respondent to appear for a deposition during the second week of March 2013 and to bring copies of his tax returns. In a letter dated February 27, 2013, respondent stated that he could attend a deposition on March 8, 2013 and would bring all "the relevant documents." Respondent's deposition was rescheduled to March 27, 2013. At the deposition, respondent, who appeared pro se, failed to provide his tax returns.

         In a letter dated April 15, 2014, the Committee reminded respondent that he still had not provided items previously requested [1]. Respondent did not provide his tax returns in response to the Committee's letter. At a deposition held on September 8, 2014, respondent again appeared without his tax returns. The Committee reminded respondent that he needed to provide them. Respondent explained that he would be meeting with his accountant soon and would need one more week. Nonetheless, the tax returns were not provided.

         On February 25, 2015, the Committee obtained a judicial subpoena signed by this Court, directing respondent to appear personally on March 11, 2015 and to bring copies of his individual and business, state and federal tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. In a telephone conversation on March 4, 2015, respondent agreed to accept service of the subpoena by mail, which the Committee memorialized in a letter dated that same day. On March 11, 2015, respondent appeared before the Committee for a deposition pursuant to the subpoena. Respondent did not bring copies of his tax returns. He requested an adjournment of the deposition in order to retain counsel.

         On May 5, 2015, the Committee sent respondent an email indicating that it had not received any communication from any attorney claiming to represent him. Moreover, the Committee still had not received the copies of respondent's tax returns demanded by judicial subpoena. Respondent was directed to inform the Committee by May 8, 2015 as to whether he would be retaining counsel. The Committee also reminded respondent that he was to provide copies of his tax returns and if he would not do so, to explain why.

         On May 10, 2016, the Committee spoke by telephone with respondent and reminded him that he still had not complied with the Committee's requests for his tax returns. This conversation was memorialized in an email sent later that day to respondent. In the email, the Committee directed that respondent would have until May 18, 2016 to provide the copies of his tax returns for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. The Committee's email explicitly warned respondent that failure to provide all four of the returns " [w]ill be considered a failure to cooperate with the Committee's investigation and may result in your suspension. " The email also referred respondent to the relevant disciplinary rule and case law dealing with attorney suspensions based on failure to cooperate with an investigation by the Committee. [2]

         Respondent appeared again for a deposition, pursuant to a second judicial subpoena, on June 22, 2016. Respondent did not provide his tax returns. At the deposition, he stated that he was still in the process of ...


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.