IN RE: Pincus D. CARLEBACH (2018)

Respondent Pincus D. Carlebach was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on February 27, 1991, under the name Pincus David Carlebach.  At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained a registered address within the First Judicial Department.

By order entered November 21, 2017, respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law based on uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct, namely, that respondent converted and/or misappropriated third-party funds in connection with a bankruptcy related real estate transaction, which misconduct immediately threatened the public interest (see 156 A.D.3d 44, 65 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2017] ).

On May 3, 2018, respondent entered a plea of guilty in Supreme Court, New York County, to scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal Law § 190.65[1][b] ), a class E felony, and grand larceny in the second degree (Penal Law § 155.40[1] ), a class C felony.  At the plea proceeding, respondent admitted that he committed first-degree scheme to defraud by engaging in a scheme constituting an ongoing course of conduct with the intent to defraud and to obtain property with a value in excess of $1,000.00.  Specifically, respondent, while representing clients in bankruptcy matters, engaged in a scheme by which he embezzled $1.83 million in escrow funds from his IOLA account and used those funds for personal expenses and to repay the embezzled funds.  Respondent also admitted that he committed second-degree grand larceny by stealing over $50,000.00 of property from SH575 Holdings LLC.¹

The Attorney Grievance Committee seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b), and the Rules of Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.12(c)(1) on the ground that he was convicted of felonies as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e), and thus should be automatically disbarred.  The Committee asserts that its application is timely because, for purposes of automatic disbarment, a conviction occurs at the time of plea or verdict (see Matter of Ogihara, 121 A.D.3d 47, 989 N.Y.S.2d 853 [1st Dept. 2014];  Matter of Silberman, 31 A.D.3d 21, 814 N.Y.S.2d 89 [1st Dept. 2006] ).  Respondent does not oppose the instant motion.

Respondent's admission of guilt of the New York felonies of scheme to defraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the second degree constitutes grounds for disbarment and his name shall be stricken from the rolls pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) (see Matter of Scollar, 159 A.D.3d 59, 68 N.Y.S.3d 885 [1st Dept. 2017];  Matter of Arntsen, 106 A.D.3d 17, 960 N.Y.S.2d 640 [1st Dept. 2013];  Matter of Bernstein, 78 A.D.3d 94, 909 N.Y.S.2d 50 [1st Dept. 2010].

Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted and respondent's name shall be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(1), nunc pro tunc to May 3, 2018.

The Committee's motion is granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(1), nunc pro tunc to May 3, 2018.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On March 28, 2018 respondent also pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to embezzling $30,000.00 from a client's bankruptcy estate.

Per Curiam

All concur.