In the Matter of Carol L. Schlitt, admitted as Carol Lynn Schlitt, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Carol L. Schlitt, respondent. Attorney Registration No. 2119667
Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, NY (Thomas Graham Amon of
counsel), for petitioner.
Scalise & Hamilton LLP, Scarsdale, NY (Deborah A. Scalise
of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA
MARK C. DILLON LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
OPINION & ORDER
pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.10 by Carol L. Schlitt, who was
admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on April
22, 1987, under the name Carol Lynn Schlitt, to resign as an
attorney and counselor-at-law. The Grievance Committee for
the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts
commenced a disciplinary proceeding pursuant to 22 NYCRR
1240.8 by service upon the respondent and the filing with
this Court of a notice of petition dated August 15, 2017, and
a verified petition dated August 9, 2017. On August 17, 2017,
the Grievance Committee served an order to show cause upon
the respondent, seeking, inter alia, an order immediately
suspending her from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR
1240.9(a)(4) and(5), based up on a finding that she is guilty
of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public
respondent, Carol L. Schlitt, admitted as Carol Lynn Schlitt,
has submitted an affidavit sworn to on September 19, 2017, in
support of her application to resign as an attorney and
counselor-at-law (see 22 NYCRR 1240.10).
respondent acknowledges in her affidavit that her resignation
is freely and voluntarily rendered, and that she is not being
subjected to coercion or duress by anyone. She acknowledges
that she is the subject of a disciplinary charge pending
before this Court, as set forth in a verified petition dated
August 9, 2017, alleging willful misappropriation of money or
property. The respondent acknowledges that she could not
successfully defend herself against the allegations based up
on the facts and circumstances of her professional conduct.
Further, she acknowledges that she is fully aware of the
implications of submitting her resignation, including that
the Court's acceptance and approval shall result in the
entry of an order of disbarment striking her name from the
roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.
the issue of restitution, the respondent consents to the
entry of an order by the Court, pursuant to Judiciary Law
§ 90(6-a), directing that she make monetary restitution
to Heidi Visser. The respondent also acknowledges that her
resignation is submitted subject to any future application
that may be made by the Grievance Committee for an order,
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(6-a), directing that she
make restitution or reimburse the Lawyers ' Fund for
Client Protection of the State of New York, and that she
consents to the Court 's continuing jurisdiction to make
such an order.
respondent also acknowledges and agrees that p ending the
issuance of this order accepting her resignation, she will
not undertake to rep resent any new clients or accept any
retainers for future legal services to be rendered and that
there will be no transactional activity in any fiduciary
account to which she has access, other than for payment of
funds held therein on behalf of clients or others entitled to
the respondent acknowledges that in the event that the Court
accepts her resignation, the order resulting therefrom and
the records and documents filed in relation to the
aforementioned charge and allegations, including her
affidavit, shall be deemed public records pursuant to
Judiciary Law § 90(10).
Grievance Committee recommends that the Court grant the
respondent's application for resignation.
as the respondent's application to resign complies with
the requirements of 22 NYCRR 1240.10, the application is
granted and, effective immediately, the respondent is
disbarred, and her name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law. The motion by the Grievance
Committee, which, inter alia, seeks to immediately suspend
the respondent from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR
1240.9(a)(4) and (5), is denied as academic. On the
Court's own ...