IN RE: John Martin Justin SHEA (2026)

OPINION & ORDER

 The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District commenced a formal disciplinary proceeding pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8 against the respondent by serving and filing a notice of petition and a verified petition, both dated July 8, 2024.  The respondent filed a verified answer dated July 18, 2024.  By stipulation dated July 31, 2024, the parties stipulated to amend the petition and the respondent admitted to all the factual allegations alleged in the amended petition.  The Grievance Committee served and filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts dated August 14, 2024.  The respondent served a response dated August 16, 2024, in which the respondent agreed with the Grievance Committee's statement.  By decision and order on application dated September 19, 2024, this Court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8(b)(1), referred the matter to the Honorable Charles J. Thomas, as Special Referee, to hear and report.  In a report dated May 20, 2025, the Special Referee sustained the two charges in the amended petition.  By notice of motion dated June 6, 2025, the Grievance Committee moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper.  In response, the respondent joins the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report.  The respondent requests that this matter be referred back to the Grievance Committee for private discipline.

The Amended Petition

The amended petition alleges two charges of professional misconduct concerning the respondent's escrow account.  The respondent maintained an escrow account at Chase Bank with an account number ending in 1189, entitled “The Shea Law Firm P.C. Attorney Trust Account IOLA” (hereinafter the escrow account).

In or about August 2022, the respondent represented Michael O'Beirne in the sale of real property to purchasers Gregory Ziman and Diane Ziman (hereinafter together the purchasers).  On or about August 31, 2022, the respondent deposited a down payment in the amount of $46,750 in connection with the O'Beirne matter into the escrow account.  The closing for the O'Beirne matter was held on October 27, 2022.

On or about September 12, 2022, the respondent transferred the amount of $46,750 from the escrow account into his business operating account at Chase Bank, with account number ending in 3822 (hereinafter the operating account).  Between August 31, 2022, and October 27, 2022, the balance in the escrow account fell below $46,750 on at least four separate dates, to as low as $20.  Between September 12, 2022, and October 27, 2022, the balance in the operating account fell below $46,750 on at least nine separate dates, to as low as $14.

Based on the above, charge one alleges that the respondent misappropriated funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary incident to his practice of law, in violation of rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0).  Charge two alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Hearing Record

On October 25, 2023, the respondent appeared for an examination under oath.  On February 4, 2025, a hearing was conducted.  The Grievance Committee entered one exhibit into evidence, a transcript of the respondent's examination under oath together with exhibits, to prove its case in chief.  The respondent submitted five exhibits, called six character witnesses, and testified on his own behalf.

The respondent testified that he opened his solo practice in Huntington Village in 1994 and that he is the sole signatory on the escrow account.  The respondent primarily practices in the areas of criminal law and personal injury law.  As to his representation of O'Beirne, the respondent testified that on or about August 26, 2022, he received from the purchasers a check for the down payment, which was incorrectly made out to the respondent personally.  The respondent notified the purchasers' attorney of the issue, and the purchasers hand delivered a replacement check in the amount of $46,750, which the respondent deposited in the escrow account on August 31, 2022.

The respondent testified that at approximately the same time, on August 30, 2022, he entered into a contract to sell a 2019 New Flyer Excelsior articulating bus that he had acquired through an auction.  An individual (hereinafter the bus purchaser) agreed to buy the bus for the sum of $110,000, paid in two installments, with the first payment in the amount of $47,650.  On August 30, 2022, the respondent received the first payment for the bus by personal check in the amount of $47,650.  The respondent testified that he believed that he had deposited the bus check in his personal account;  however, the respondent had not in fact deposited the check.

The respondent testified that on September 12, 2022, he made an electronic transfer in the amount of $46,750 from the escrow account (which contained only the O'Beirne funds and $20) to the operating account using a banking application on his phone.  The respondent believed then that he had deposited the bus check into the escrow account by mistake (even though he testified that he had also thought he deposited the bus check into his personal account).  The respondent testified that he had forgotten about the O'Beirne down payment altogether:  “it just never even entered [his] mind.”

The respondent received an inquiry from the bank regarding the O'Beirne closing a few days prior to October 27, 2022, at which time he realized the O'Beirne down payment was not in the escrow account.  The respondent testified that he notified O'Beirne of his mistake and began moving money from other accounts to cover the amount missing from the escrow account.  The respondent did not notify the purchasers' attorney.  The respondent testified that he could not find the $47,650 bus check to deposit it and that he attempted to contact the bus purchaser for a replacement check but was unsuccessful.  The respondent testified that he was able to collect only $42,000 of the $46,750 but that the O'Beirne closing took place as scheduled.  The respondent testified that all checks that were issued in connection with the O'Beirne closing cleared.

The record indicates that the respondent did not pay O'Beirne the full amount due him from the real estate proceeds.  Rather, the respondent and O'Beirne reached an agreement regarding past legal fees, totaling $20,701.60, which the respondent deducted from the proceeds of the sale between October 28, 2022, and November 22, 2022.

A few days after the O'Beirne closing, on November 2, 2022, the respondent wrote a check in the amount of $350 from the escrow account to pay a plumber, which was dishonored approximately one month later.  The respondent testified that he wrote the check from the wrong account because he grabbed the wrong checkbook and that the operating account checkbook and the escrow account checkbook both had black covers.  The respondent self-reported this dishonored check to the Grievance Committee by letter, through counsel, dated December 9, 2022, but did not report his failure to safeguard the O'Beirne down payment of $46,750.

In mitigation, the respondent testified that he was experiencing a very stressful custody battle and issues in his personal life, which caused him to start seeing a therapist in 2021.  The respondent testified that he could not concentrate or think straight during the time of his misconduct and that the stress exacerbated his attention deficient disorder.  The respondent also had stopped using his medicated eye drops to treat the glaucoma in his right eye which caused him eventually to lose sight in his right eye.  The respondent expressed remorse for his misconduct and stated that his misconduct was inadvertent.  The respondent called six character witnesses and provided a number of character letters in support of his integrity, compassion, honesty, pro bono legal work, and commitment to his family and friends.

The Special Referee's Report

The Special Referee sustained both charges of professional misconduct.  The Special Referee concluded that the respondent was remorseful, that he acknowledged his misconduct, that he was resolute not to repeat his mistakes, and that his conduct was not intentional.

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 response, the respondent joins the Grievance Committee's motion and requests that this matter be referred back to the Grievance Committee for private discipline.

Findings and Conclusion

In view of the respondent's admissions and evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained the two charges in the amended petition.  Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted.  In determining the appropriate measure of discipline, notwithstanding the aforementioned mitigating factors, including the respondent's previously unblemished disciplinary record, the respondent's request for private discipline is not supported by the record or this Court's precedent.  We find that the respondent failed to honor his obligations as a fiduciary and that his misconduct was careless if not intentional, resulting in the misappropriation of $46,750 over a two-month period.  Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that the respondent's conduct warrants a suspension from the practice of law for a period of two years.

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

ORDERED that the respondent, John Martin Justin Shea, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, commencing November 6, 2026, and continuing until further order of this Court.  The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than May 8, 2028.  In such application (see 22 NYCRR 1240.16), the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof that during the period of suspension, he (1) refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) fully complied with this opinion and order and with the terms and provisions of the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15), (3) complied with the applicable continuing legal education requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.11(a), and (4) otherwise properly conducted himself;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, John Martin Justin Shea, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15);  and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the respondent, John Martin Justin Shea, shall 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;  and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, John Martin Justin Shea, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).

PER CURIAM.

LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and DOWLING, JJ., concur.