IN RE: Julian KAPLAN (1999)

The Grievance Committee served the respondent with a petition dated June 30, 1998, containing one charge of professional misconduct against him.   After hearings on October 30 and November 16, 1998, the Special Referee sustained the charge.   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.   The respondent has neither cross-moved nor submitted any papers in response to the Grievance Committee's motion.

Charge One alleges that the respondent converted and misappropriated client escrow funds for purposes other than that for which they were originally intended, in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), (5), and (8) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][1], [4], [5], and [8] ).

Howard Slote and Tobia Rosenblatt retained the respondent to handle the closing on property owned by their late father at 229 Lexington Avenue in New York City. On or about July 26, 1996, and August 5, 1996, the buyer of the property tendered two checks to the respondent in the sums of $15,000 and $30,000, respectively, as a down payment.   Bank records reveal deposits of those amounts into the respondent's escrow account on July 26, 1996, and August 5, 1996, respectively.

The closing took place on or about May 20, 1997.

Bank statements for the periods from August 10, 1996, through June 10, 1997, indicate that at no time from the depositing of the down payment to the closing on the property did the respondent maintain a balance equal to the $45,000 down payment.

 By his failure to preserve the down payment from the time of deposit to the time of closing, the respondent did not fulfill his obligations as a fiduciary.

Based on the respondent's admissions and the bank records introduced into evidence at the hearing, the Special Referee properly sustained Charge One.   The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is, therefore, granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, the respondent admits that he received one Letter of Admonition from the Grievance Committee in or about June 1997, emanating from his failure to communicate with both the Grievance Committee and a client.   At the hearing, the respondent's counsel indicated an intent to submit character letters to the court.   However, no letters were submitted.

 Under the circumstances, the respondent is guilty of serious professional misconduct which warrants his disbarment.

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

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Julian Kaplan, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law;  and it is further,

ORDERED that Julian Kaplan shall comply with this court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10);  and it is further,

ORDERED that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, Julian Kaplan is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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.