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 Way

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

March 28, 2018

In the Matter of Fred Douglas Way III, a suspended attorney. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Fred Douglas Way III, respondent. Attorney Registration No. 1988203

         D54569 O/htr

          Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, NY (Mark F. DeWan of counsel), for petitioner.

          Andrew M. Krisel, Brooklyn, NY, for respondent.

          WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. REINALDO E. RIVERA MARK C. DILLON RUTH C. BALKIN SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

          OPINION & ORDER

          PER CURIAM.

         DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING instituted pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8 by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on April 10, 1985. In a separate proceeding under Appellate Division Docket No. 2015-00026, by decision and order on motion dated April 23, 2015, this Court, inter alia, immediately suspended the respondent from the practice of law pursuant to former 22 NYCRR 691.4(1)(1)(i), and authorized the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts to institute a disciplinary proceeding based upon a petition dated December 24, 2014. By opinion and order of this Court dated May 18, 2016, the charges in the December 24, 2014, petition were sustained, and the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective immediately, with credit for the time served from the date of his immediate suspension such that he might apply for reinstatement immediately. The respondent has not been reinstated.

         The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts served the respondent with a verified petition dated January 10, 2017, containing two charges of professional misconduct. By decision and order on application dated April 5, 2017, this Court referred the issues raised in the parties' joint stipulation of disputed and undisputed facts dated March 1, 2017, as well as any evidence in mitigation and/or aggravation, to the Honorable Patricia M. DiMango, as Special Referee, to hear and report. After a pre-hearing conference held on May 19, 2017, and a hearing held on June 8, 2017, the Special Referee issued a report sustaining both charges. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. In an affirmation in response, the respondent's counsel opposes the motion to confirm the Special Referee's report. However, in the event the Court sustains the charges, he requests the sanction be limited to time served under the current suspension.

         Charge one alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), by failing to comply with this Court's decision and order on motion dated April 23, 2015, which immediately suspended him from the practice of law (hereinafter the interim suspension order), as follows:

         On May 4, 2015, the Grievance Committee personally served the respondent with the interim suspension order and a copy of the Rules Governing Conduct of Attorneys (former 22 NYCRR 691.10; hereinafter the Court Rules). The interim suspension order directed the respondent to promptly comply with the Court Rules. Pursuant to former 22 NYCRR 691.10(c) and (d), the applicable rules in this proceeding, the respondent was required to promptly notify his clients, by registered or certified mail, of his immediate suspension from the practice of law, and his consequent inability to act as their attorney. The respondent did not notify his clients of his immediate suspension until on or about July 20, 2015.

         Additionally, pursuant to former 22 NYCRR 691.10(f), the respondent was required to file with the Clerk of the Court, within 10 days of the effective date of his suspension, an affidavit showing: (1) that he had fully complied with the provisions of the interim suspension order and the Court Rules, and (2) that he had served a copy of such affidavit upon the petitioner. The respondent did not file an affidavit of compliance with the Court until June 17, 2016.

         Charge two alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), by failing to comply with the interim suspension order in that he continued to hold himself out as an attorney after the effective date of his suspension, as follows:

         The interim suspension order directed the respondent to promptly comply with the Court Rules and to desist and refrain from, inter alia, holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. At the time of his suspension, the respondent maintained an attorney escrow account at Hudson Valley Bank, #xxxx4801, entitled "Fred D. Way III, IOLA Attorney Trust Account'' (hereinafter the escrow account). The respondent failed to close the escrow account after his suspension, and continued to maintain funds therein, as follows:

(1) a $5, 000 down payment for a real estate transaction involving 1412 Eastern Parkway Sunoco, Inc., and the Roger Thomas Trust. The down payment was not refunded until on or about May 23, 2016;
(2) a $110, 000 down payment for a real estate transaction involving Grace Baptist Church. The down payment remained in the escrow account until on or about September 20, 2016, when he transferred that amount to the Kings County ...

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.