In re Basdekis

• Decision Date: 04 August 2016
• Citation: 142 A.D.3d 280,37 N.Y.S.3d 254,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05735
• Parties: In the Matter of Athanasios BASDEKIS, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Athanasios Basdekis, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 280
37 N.Y.S.3d 254
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05735

In the Matter of Athanasios BASDEKIS, an attorney and counselor-at-law.

Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,

Athanasios Basdekis, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Aug. 4, 2016.

37 N.Y.S.3d 255

Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Lance E. Philadelphia, of counsel), for petitioner.

Daniel L. Abrams, for respondent.

PETER TOM, Justice Presiding, ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, RICHARD T. ANDRIAS, SALLIE MANZANET–DANIELS, ELLEN GESMER, Justices.

PER CURIAM.

142 A.D.3d 281

Respondent Athanasios Basdekis was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on September 24, 1998. Since 2005, respondent has also been admitted to practice in West Virginia where he currently maintains an office for the practice of law.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) now seeks an order, pursuant to the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.3, imposing reciprocal discipline on respondent, in the form of a public censure, based upon discipline imposed upon him by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

By order filed November 12, 2015, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals suspended respondent from the practice of law for four months, execution of which was to be suspended in favor of an 18–month period of unsupervised probation subject to the conditions that respondent not be subject to another disciplinary proceeding, he advise his current employer of the terms of his probation, and that he comply with specified, continued treatment which was to include psychiatric care, professional counseling, and regular attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The court's decision was based upon findings by the Board on Professional Responsibility (BPR) that respondent had violated the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct by engaging in a pattern of neglect in connection with six client matters, which resulted in all of the clients losing their claims. Summary judgment was entered against two of his clients by default, one client's action was dismissed as a sanction for respondent's failure to respond to a discovery order, and the statute of limitations expired on the claims of two other clients. Further, two of respondent's clients were sanctioned because of his inaction. Respondent's behavior, all of which he admitted to, was found to violate District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a) (failure to provide competent representation); 1.1(b) (failure to serve a client with skill and care commensurate with that generally afforded to clients by other lawyers in similar matters); 1.3(a) (failure to represent a client zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law); 1.3(b)(1) (intentional failure to seek the lawful objectives of a client through reasonably available

142 A.D.3d 282

means permitted by law and the disciplinary rules); 1.3(c) (failure to act with reasonable promptness in representing a client); 1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about status of their matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information); and 3.2(b) (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client).

The parties stipulated that there was significant mitigation, namely: nine years had elapsed without further disciplinary complaints being made against respondent; he had no disciplinary record; he fully cooperated with the disciplinary investigation; there was no venality on respondent's part; he took responsibility and expressed remorse for his misconduct; during the period of misconduct he was suffering from Alcohol Dependence and Bipolar Disorder for which he later sought

37 N.Y.S.3d 256

residential and outpatient treatment and, according to the medical evidence submitted, he is now in remission¹ ; the medical evidence supports a conclusion that alcohol dependence “substantially affected his misconduct”; he voluntarily ceased the practice of law in 2006 and became vice president of a real estate venture; upon resuming the practice of law in 2008, he joined a law firm in Charleston, West Virginia with a more supportive infrastructure where he was made a partner in 2010; although he had a two-day “slip” in September 2013, in which he abused alcohol, it did not affect his work, he has...