GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT PETITIONER v. << (2026)

Order of suspension entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 22, 2007. His office address on file with the Office of Court Administration is located in Lackawanna. In August 2025, the Grievance Committee filed a petition containing a sole charge of professional misconduct against respondent, which includes allegations that he failed to communicate with a client, engaged in sexual relations with the client, giving rise to an impermissible conflict of interest, and made false statements to the Grievance Committee during its investigation. Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations of the petition, and this Court appointed a referee to conduct a hearing. Following the hearing, the Referee filed a report sustaining the charge of misconduct and making numerous findings in aggravation thereof, including that respondent gave false testimony during the hearing and resorted to ad hominem attacks against the client and grievance counsel. The Grievance Committee moves to confirm the report of the Referee and for a final order of discipline. Respondent cross-moves for an order disaffirming the report of the Referee, dismissing the petition, and appointing an “independent referee” to investigate grievance counsel for alleged misconduct during the hearing. Respondent appeared before the Court on the return date of the motions, at which time he was afforded an opportunity to be heard in mitigation.

The Referee found that, during the summer of 2023, respondent accepted a $200 legal fee to represent a client in an impending foreclosure matter. The Referee found that, after the client was served with a foreclosure petition in early October 2023, respondent filed an answer and made four court appearances remotely on her behalf. The Referee found that, during the fall of 2023, respondent's relationship with the client “became more personal,” as evidenced by thousands of text messages between them and images from security camera video, which captured respondent at the client's home. The Referee found that respondent engaged in sexual relations with the client on several occasions in October 2023. The Referee also credited the client's testimony that she was “shocked” to learn that respondent was married and that she subsequently became worried that the outcome of her legal matter might suffer if she discontinued the intimate relationship. The Referee found that, after the intimate relationship soured, respondent “went silent” for several months in early 2024. During that time period, respondent failed to inform the client about a court conference that occurred in April 2024. The Referee found that the client thereafter terminated the representation, filed a grievance complaint, and resolved the foreclosure matter on her own.

With respect to respondent's alleged misconduct during the grievance investigation, the Referee found that respondent made numerous false statements during the investigation in an effort to conceal the misconduct underlying the client's grievance complaint. The Referee found that respondent falsely denied engaging in sexual relations with the client, falsely denied visiting her home to engage in sexual relations, and asserted, without supporting proof, that the client used a “burner phone” to alter or fabricate text messages between them. The Referee further noted that respondent sought to discredit the client by making unsupported and incredible assertions, including that the she was violent, mentally ill, and “stalking” respondent.

In aggravation of the alleged misconduct, the Referee found that respondent gave false testimony during the hearing by reiterating many of the false statements he made during the investigation. The Referee also noted that, throughout the disciplinary process, respondent made spurious, “overtly cruel,” and frivolous ad hominem attacks against multiple individuals involved in the investigation of the allegations against him, including the client, grievance counsel, and grievance staff. For instance, following the hearing, in a submission containing allegations the Referee described as “spurious, insulting, cruel and irrelevant,” respondent requested that the Referee find that grievance counsel pursued the charge against him out of “sympathy” for the client.

We confirm the factual findings of the Referee, find respondent guilty of professional misconduct, and conclude that he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0):

rule 1.4 (a) (3)—failing to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter;

rule 1.7 (a) (2)—representing a client in a matter in which a reasonable lawyer would conclude that there is a significant risk that the lawyer's professional judgment on behalf of the client will be adversely affected by the lawyer's own financial, business, property or other personal interests, without obtaining from each affected client informed consent, confirmed in writing;

rule 8.4 (c)—engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;

rule 8.4 (d)—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice; and

rule 8.4 (h)—engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer.

In determining an appropriate sanction, we note that respondent has no disciplinary history and that the misconduct giving rise to the grievance investigation was isolated to a single client matter. However, we conclude that respondent failed to offer any persuasive mitigating factors. To the contrary, the most concerning aggravating factors in this matter involve respondent's tactics in response to the client's grievance complaint. As found by the Referee, respondent made false statements during the investigation, gave false testimony during the hearing, and resorted to frivolous ad hominem attacks against, inter alia, the client and grievance counsel. We note that respondent reiterated many of those false and frivolous assertions when he appeared before this Court. In our view, respondent's tactics evince a lack of remorse for the misconduct, an inability to acknowledge his own wrongdoing, and a disregard for the authority of the Grievance Committee and this Court. Accordingly, after consideration of all the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, and until further order of this Court. PRESENT: LINDLEY, J.P., OGDEN, NOWAK, AND DELCONTE, JJ. (Filed July 24, 2026.)