IN RE: George E. LASCH (1999)

In this proceeding the respondent was served with a petition containing 14 charges of professional misconduct against him.   Charges One, Two, Four, Five, Ten and Twelve were withdrawn while Charges Three, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Eleven, Thirteen, and Fourteen were admitted, with certain amendments.   The Special Referee sustained those charges.   The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's findings and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the court deems just and proper.   The respondent joins in the Grievance Committee's motion, accepts the report of the Special Referee, and emphasizes the mitigating circumstances.

Charge Three alleged that on or about July 31, 1996, the respondent received and was entrusted with the sum of $2,300 as a down payment to be held in escrow in accordance with the contract of sale between Theresa Hicks and Michael J. Canzoneri.   The respondent wrongfully converted the down payment to his own use and benefit, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 (22 NYCRR 1200.46).

The respondent admitted Charge Three and stipulated that he made restitution of $2,300 to Theresa Hicks in or about November 1996.

Charge Six alleged that the respondent failed to properly cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigation of the complaint filed against him by Theresa Hicks, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(5) and (8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][5] and [8] ).

On or about November 4, 1996, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of the Hicks complaint and requested his written response within 15 days.   No response was received.

By certified letter dated December 9, 1996, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that his failure to cooperate with the investigation could, in and of itself, constitute professional misconduct.   The respondent was directed to respond within 10 days.   Although that letter was delivered on December 12, 1996, the Grievance Committee received no response.

A second certified letter, dated January 6, 1997, demanded that the respondent answer within five days and warned that his continued failure to reply would result in a motion for his interim suspension.   The respondent failed to reply.

The respondent admitted Charge Six.

Charge Seven alleged that the respondent represented Garry and Jane Themak in August 1995 in the sale of their real property to Anthony Lombardi.   At the closing on or about August 25, 1995, the respondent was entrusted with the sum of $1,500 of the sale proceeds, by agreement of purchaser and seller.   It was agreed that the sum would be held by the respondent in escrow, pending delivery to the purchaser of a certificate of occupancy for the premises, whereupon the escrow was to be released to the seller.

On or about October 15, 1996, the seller delivered a proper certificate of occupancy to the respondent for delivery to the purchaser.   To date, the respondent has failed to deliver the escrow to the seller.   From approximately October 1996 to date, the respondent failed to respond to the seller's repeated inquiries.

By reason of the foregoing, the respondent is charged with violating Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101(A)(3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30[a] [3] ).

Charge Eight alleged that the respondent violated Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102(C)(4) (22 NYCRR 1200.46[c][4] ), by reason of the misconduct set forth in Charge Seven.

The respondent has admitted both Charges Seven and Eight.

Charge Nine alleged that the respondent wrongfully converted the down payment of $1,500 to his own use and benefit, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 (22 NYCRR 1200.46).

The respondent admitted Charge Nine.

Charge Eleven alleged that the respondent failed to properly cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigation of the complaint filed against him by Garry Themak, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(5) and (8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][5] and [8] ).

By certified letter dated March 7, 1997, the Grievance Committee sent the respondent a copy of the Themak complaint and requested his cooperation within 15 days.   Although that letter was delivered on or about March 17, 1997, no response was received by the Grievance Committee.

The respondent admitted Charge Eleven.

Charge Thirteen alleged that on June 20, 1997, the respondent was personally served with notice of entry of this court's order of suspension, dated June 12, 1997.   That order directed the respondent to appear at the Grievance Committee's offices within 20 days to give testimony and to bring any and all books and records pertaining to the Hicks and Themak complaints.   Although more than 20 days elapsed after the date of the court's order, the respondent failed to appear as directed.

By reason of the foregoing, the respondent is charged with violating Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][5] ).

The respondent admitted Charge Thirteen.

Charge Fourteen alleged that the respondent failed to file an affidavit of compliance, as required by 22 NYCRR 691.10, and thereby violated Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][5] ).

The respondent admitted Charge Fourteen.

Based on the respondent's admissions and the evidence adduced, the Special Referee properly sustained Charges Three, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Eleven, Thirteen, and Fourteen.   The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm, as joined in by the respondent, is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent asks the court to consider the disease of chronic alcoholism, from which he suffers;  his candor throughout the proceedings;  his efforts to rehabilitate himself, including participation in an in patient program, which he successfully completed on January 8, 1998, his immediate entry in a “sober house,” where he continues to reside while receiving Social Services Assistance, his daily contact with an Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor and his attendance at daily meetings;  his total lack of venal intent;  and the full restitution made to his aggrieved client, Theresa Hicks.

Under these particular circumstances, the respondent is suspended from the practice of law for three years.

ORDERED that the petitioner's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, George E. Lasch, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, commencing immediately, and continuing until the further order of this court, with leave to the respondent to apply for reinstatement no sooner than six months prior to the expiration of the said period of three years, upon furnishing satisfactory proof that (a) during the said period he refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (b) he has fully complied with this order and with the terms and provisions of the written rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10), and (c) he has otherwise properly conducted himself;  and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until the further order of this court, the respondent, George E. Lasch, shall continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.

PER CURIAM.