Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Clarke (In re Clarke)

• Citation: 136 N.Y.S.3d 249,190 A.D.3d 57
• Decision Date: 19 November 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 2020-03331,Motion No. 2020-2587
• Parties: In the Matter of Wesley L. CLARKE, (Admitted as Wesley Lindon Clarke) an attorney and counselor-at law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Wesley L. CLARKE, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2525350) Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

190 A.D.3d 57
136 N.Y.S.3d 249

In the Matter of Wesley L. CLARKE, (Admitted as Wesley Lindon Clarke) an attorney and counselor-at law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
v.
Wesley L. CLARKE, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2525350) Respondent.

Motion No. 2020-2587
Case No. 2020-03331

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

November 19, 2020

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent, pro se.

Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Angela M. Mazzarelli, Anil C. Singh, Tanya R. Kennedy, Saliann Scarpulla, JJ.

Per Curiam

190 A.D.3d 58

Respondent Wesley L. Clarke was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on January 11, 1993, under the name Wesley Lindon Clarke. Although respondent's registered address is in the District of Columbia, this Court retains jurisdiction as the Judicial Department in which he was admitted to practice (Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [a][2] ).

By order entered September 12, 2019, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred respondent by consent, effective October 25, 2019 ( 215 A.3d 760 [2019] ).

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now seeks an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, finding that respondent has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction, directing him to demonstrate why he should not be disciplined in New York

136 N.Y.S.3d 251

based on his discipline in the District of Columbia (D.C.), and disbarring him or, in the alternative, sanctioning him as this Court deems appropriate. Respondent opposes.

In 2019, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the District of Columbia (Disciplinary Counsel) filed a motion with the Board on Professional Responsibility (Board) to accept respondent's consent to disbarment. The motion was supported by respondent's affidavit in which he consented to his disbarment effective October 25, 2019. He acknowledged that his consent was freely and voluntarily rendered, he was not subject to coercion or duress, and he was fully aware of the implications of consenting to disbarment.

Additionally, respondent acknowledged that he was aware that Disciplinary Counsel was investigating multiple matters involving his conduct and the allegations against him included misappropriation of estate funds and disputed funds, false representations to the probate court and the Office of the Auditor Master (OAM) about fees he collected, and the submission of false billing to both a client and the OAM in violation of

190 A.D.3d 59

D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) (failure to safeguard client funds), 1.15(d) (failure to safeguard disputed funds), 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and 8.4(d) (conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice).

Respondent conceded that based upon inaccuracies in billing he generated for clients, the Disciplinary Counsel had sufficient evidence to prove that he "engaged in reckless misappropriation in three matters"; that while he did not believe that he intentionally misled the client or the court, the Disciplinary Counsel had sufficient evidence to prove that he "engaged in reckless dishonesty in ... four matters"; there were "serious shortcomings" in his representation in the cases at issue; while he never intended to misrepresent any material fact or to misappropriate funds, the Disciplinary Counsel had sufficient evidence to prove that he "engaged in reckless misappropriation and reckless dishonesty"; "the material facts upon which the ... allegations of misconduct [were] predicated [were] true"; and "if disciplinary proceedings based on the alleged misconduct were brought, [he] could not successfully defend against them."

Respondent requested that his disbarment become effective on October 25, 2019 to allow him time to wind up his law practice during which he agreed not to take on any new clients or client matters and he would inform all of his current clients of his consent to disbarment based on the pending disciplinary matters before taking any further action in their matters. Disciplinary Counsel agreed to respondent's request as these conditions protected the public.

Upon review of respondent's affidavit consenting to disbarment, the Board issued a decision recommending he be disbarred...