In the Matter of Mark D. Bogard (admitted as Mark Daryl Bogard), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Mark D. Bogard, Respondent.
proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee
for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Mark D.
Bogard, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a
Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the
Third Judicial Department on June 23, 2009.
Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New
York (Kevin P. Culley, of counsel), for petitioner.
appearance for respondent.
M. Mazzarelli Justice Presiding, Rolando T. Acosta Sallie
Manzanet-Daniels Troy K. Webber Ellen Gesmer, Justices.
Mark D. Bogard was admitted to the practice of law in the
State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on June
23, 2009, under the name Mark Daryl Bogard. At all times
relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office
for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
motion dated November 21, 2016, the Attorney Grievance
Committee (Committee) moves, pursuant to the Rules for
Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(a)
and (b), for an order finding that respondent has been
disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction and directing him to
demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed in New York
for the underlying professional misconduct. The Committee
properly served its petition on respondent, pro se, and by
way of a December 21, 2016 email, respondent confirmed that
he does not intend to submit a response.
order filed November 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of New
Jersey reprimanded respondent for, inter alia, gross neglect
of a foreclosure matter, which resulted in his clients'
house being sold at a sheriff's sale. A New Jersey
District Ethics Committee (DEC) charged respondent with
violating New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC)
rules 1.1(a) (gross neglect), 1.3 (lack of diligence), 1.4(b)
and (c) (failure to communicate), and 5.1(b) and 5.3(a) and
(b) (failure to properly supervise). The charges arose from
respondent's representation of a husband and wife (the
complainants), who retained his law firm (the firm), to
represent them in connection with a loan modification and a
March 2010, the complainants retained the firm to help them
obtain a loan modification in hopes of lowering the mortgage
payments for their home in New Jersey, which was in arrears.
At the DEC hearing, respondent testified that he executed the
firm's retainer agreement with the complainants because
he was physically present in the firm's New York office
when they came in; but he was not specifically assigned to
their loan modification, which was handled by the staff in
the main office in Florida over whom he had no supervisory
complainants' loan modification was not completed for
various reasons. The DEC found that the firm appeared to have
mishandled the loan modification, but it found no
professional misconduct on respondent's part because he
had no control over the Florida staff that was handling the
2012, a final judgment of foreclosure was entered against the
complainants. On August 31, 2012, the complainants met with
respondent to discuss the loan modification and informed him
that a sheriff's sale had been scheduled for September
12, 2012. On or about September 4, 2012, the complainants
executed a second retainer agreement with the firm to
represent them in the foreclosure matter for which they paid
an additional fee of $2, 135.
admitted that it was his responsibility to stop the
sheriff's sale. However, he took no action on the matter
until September 11, 2012, the day before the sale, when he
purportedly called the Union County Sheriff's Office and
was informed that only the homeowners could apply for an
adjournment of the sale, and not even his personal appearance
as their attorney would suffice. Respondent admitted that he
did not ask to speak to a supervisor or to the Union County
Sheriff, nor did he submit anything in writing to the
sheriff's office. Respondent did not memorialize this
purported telephone conversation. Neither respondent nor
anyone from the firm attended the sale because the
sheriff's office purportedly told respondent that it
would not help.
hearing testimony was contradicted by a representative from
the Union County Sheriff's Office who testified that a
homeowner's attorney could request an adjournment of a
sale by submitting either a retainer agreement or written
instructions from the homeowner authorizing the attorney to
request an adjournment, and that two-week adjournments were
routinely granted. 
testified that the day prior to the sale, he tried to reach
the complainants at three different telephone numbers to no
avail. He also sent his client an email informing her that
she had to go in person to the sheriff's sale the next
day in order to stop it. In his email, respondent stated that
by waiting to the last minute to request an adjournment, the
client would maximize her time to delay the sale. Notably,
the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) found that the email