In the Matter of Alexander Perchekly, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Alexander Perchekly, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2936771 Respondent.
proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee
for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Alexander
Perchekly, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York
at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for
the Second Judicial Department on January 27, 1999.
Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New
York (Sherine F. Cummings, of counsel), for petitioner.
Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins, P.C. (Barry Kamins, Esq.) for
Friedman, Justice Presiding, John W. Sweeny, Jr., Dianne T.
Renwick, Judith J. Gische, Marcy L. Kahn, Justices.
Alexander Perchekly was admitted to the practice of law in
the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on
January 27, 1999, and all times relevant herein he maintained
an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial
order entered February 23, 2017, this Court granted a motion
by the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee), seeking
respondent's interim suspension from the practice of law
pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Discipline Matters (22
NYCRR) 1240.9(a)(2) and (5), based upon bank records and his
admission under oath that he repeatedly converted and/or
misappropriated client funds, commingled business and client
funds, and made an improper $7, 000 cash withdrawal from his
now seeks an order, pursuant to (22 NYCRR) 1240.10, approving
his resignation and disbarring him from the practice of law.
The Committee does not oppose the motion.
acknowledges that he is currently the subject of an
investigation by the Committee involving allegations of
professional misconduct that include his unauthorized
practice of law while suspended, to wit, filing documents on
behalf of a client and contacting another firm on behalf of a
client while under suspension.
further acknowledges that in connection with his interim
suspension, he repaid the total amount converted and/or
misapproriated to the respective parties. Respondent submits
his resignation subject to any application that may be made
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(6-a), directing that he
make monetary restitution or reimburse the Lawyers' Fund
for Client Protection, and consents to the continuing
jurisdiction of the Appellate Division to make such an order.
attests that he cannot successfully defend himself against
the allegations based upon the facts and circumstances of his
professional misconduct as described herein; he submits his
resignation freely and voluntarily, without coercion or
duress, and with full awareness of the consequences,
including that the Court's acceptance and approval shall
result in the entry of an order of disbarment striking his
name from the roll of attorneys; and he agrees that pending
issuance of an order accepting his resignation, he shall not
undertake to represent any new clients or accept any
retainers for future legal services, and there will be no
transactional activity in any fiduciary account to which he
has access, other than for payment of funds on behalf of
clients or others entitled to receive them.
Committee does not oppose respondent's motion to resign
and notes that the application is in compliance with 22 NYCRR
1240.10. As to the allegations that respondent engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law while suspended, the Committee
states that, specifically, respondent: 1) filed a memorandum
for a client in New York County, Supreme Court, 2) contacted
an English firm in London for his client to enforce a U.S.
judgment against property located there, 3) failed to notify
clients, the court, and opposing counsel of his suspension
and failed to file an affirmation in compliance in accordance
with 22 NYCRR 1240.15(b) and (f), 4) failed to discontinue
advertising through email signature and social media and
failed to forfeit his secure pass in accordance with 22 NYCRR
1240.15(d) and (e), and 5) maintained active IOLA accounts.
respondent's affidavit of resignation conforms with 22
NYCRR 1240.10, respondent's motion should be granted to
the extent of accepting his resignation from the practice of
law, disbarring him, and striking his name from the roll of