In the Matter of Picard Losier, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Attorney Registration No. 1944438
respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial
Department on August 1, 1984, and admitted to the
Pennsylvania Bar on December 9, 1981. By order to show cause
dated February 24, 2017, this Court directed the respondent
to show cause why discipline should or should not be imposed
upon him in this State pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, based on
the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by an order
of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated January 3, 2013.
Lorenzo, Hauppauge, NY (Ian P. Barry of counsel), for
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA,
MARK C. DILLON, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
OPINION & ORDER
order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated January 3,
2013, the respondent's resignation was accepted, and he
was disbarred on consent from the practice of law in that
State. At the time that the respondent tendered his
resignation, there was a pending disciplinary proceeding
against him based upon a petition for discipline filed with
the office of the Secretary for the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (hereinafter the Board) on
December 22, 2010, docketed at 256 DB 2010. After a hearing
held on April 27, 2011, July 19, 2011, and August 29, 2011,
the Board issued its report and recommendations (hereinafter
the Board report), which unanimously recommended to the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that he be disbarred.
reflected in the Board report, the facts, briefly summarized,
are as follows:
respondent represented Harry Howell in connection with his
claim for workers' compensation benefits. Howell had been
awarded benefits through the early part of 1997. On July 24,
1997, the respondent filed a reinstatement petition alleging
that Howell became re-disabled as of May 3, 1997. By decision
dated August 27, 2002, the reinstatement petition was
granted. An appeal filed on behalf of Howell's employer
was denied by order dated October 16, 2002.
November 2002 through April 2003, the respondent received
eight checks payable to "Harry Howell, " which
totaled $101, 131.33. The respondent deposited those checks
into an escrow account (hereinafter the escrow account), for
which he was the sole signatory. The respondent also received
counsel fees totaling $25, 210.29.
April 11, 2003, Gayle Frink Johnson, the attorney
representing Howell's employer and the workers'
compensation insurance carrier (hereinafter PMA), spoke with
the respondent and advised him that PMA had recently learned
that Howell had died on October 16, 2001. By letter dated May
2, 2003, Johnson forwarded Howell's death certificate to
the respondent. After learning of his client's death, the
respondent did not take any reasonable steps to locate
respondent admitted that from November 21, 2003, through
April 1, 2005, he misappropriated the sum of $86, 400 from
the Howell escrow funds. In September 2005, the respondent
was contacted by, and met with, a special agent with the
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Insurance Fraud
Section. Sometime in February 2007, the respondent
established a new account on behalf of Howell's estate,
and deposited the sum of $82, 454 into that account.
about February 1, 2007, PMA filed a petition for review,
seeking to recover the overpayments made to the respondent
and Howell. In October 2007, acting on behalf of himself and
Howell's estate, the respondent paid to PMA $16, 892.57
from the escrow account, and $4, 150.38 from his own funds.
By order dated December 13, 2007, the Workers'
Compensation Judge approved a stipulation entered into
between PMA, the respondent, and Howell's estate, and the
petition for review was dismissed.
remaining funds in the escrow account, including interest,
were delivered to the attorney for the administrator of the
Howell estate in December 2007.
of Misconduct in Relation to Maintenance and ...