In re Siegel

• Decision Date: 01 April 2021
• Docket Number: PM–44–21
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Deanna L. SIEGEL, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 1961747)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

193 A.D.3d 1177

143 N.Y.S.3d 756

In the MATTER OF Deanna L. SIEGEL, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 1961747)

PM–44–21

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

Calendar Date: February 15, 2021

Decided and Entered: April 1, 2021

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Deanna L. Siegel, Schenectady, respondent pro se.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1985 and currently operates a matrimonial and family law practice in Schenectady County. Alleging that respondent has failed to cooperate with an investigation stemming from a client complaint, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) moves to suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of its investigation pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(1) and (3) and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.9. Respondent has submitted an affidavit in response to the motion and AGC has submitted an affirmation in reply.

Upon the application or motion of a grievance committee, a respondent may be suspended during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation or proceeding upon a showing that he or she "has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest" (Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]). Conduct that threatens the public interest may consist of, among other things, " ‘proof that the respondent has defaulted in responding to a notice to appear for formal interview, examination or pursuant to subpoena, or has otherwise failed to comply with a lawful demand of an attorney grievance committee in the course of its investigation’ " ( Matter of Cracolici, 173 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 102 N.Y.S.3d 789 [2019], quoting Matter of DiStefano, 154 A.D.3d 1055, 1057, 61 N.Y.S.3d 514 [2017] ; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a][1], [3]).

In her response to AGC's motion, respondent does not dispute that she failed to comply with AGC's demands. Consistent with her admission, the record readily establishes that respondent failed to respond to two separate notices advising her of the client complaint and directing her to submit a detailed response, failed to appear at an examination under oath in November 2020 and failed to provide a copy of her client's file. Instead of contesting these facts, respondent offers an explanation for her failure to comply and asks this Court to forgo a suspension. While we are sympathetic to respondent's proffered hardships, it is clear from the parties' submissions that AGC has been patient with respondent and has still received minimal compliance with its requests (see Matter of Tomney, 175 A.D.3d 810, 811, 103 N.Y.S.3d 879 [2019] ). To that end, in her response to the instant motion, respondent provided assurances to this Court that she would provide a response to the complaint and a copy of her client file within a week of her submission. Nonetheless, AGC has advised us that respondent has only recently provided a belated response to the complaint, well after the time frame she had promised. Further, AGC states that respondent's answer to the complaint was deficient, and there is no indication that she turned over a copy of her client's file. We find that this last minute attempt at offering minimal compliance does not warrant the denial of AGC's motion (see Matter of Burney, 183 A.D.3d 1005, 1006–1007, 121 N.Y.S.3d 915 [2020] ; see also Matter of Meltzer, 189 A.D.3d 80, 82, 131 N.Y.S.3d 140 [2020] ).

Accordingly, having determined that AGC has established that respondent's failure to respond to the complaint and her failure to comply with its lawful requests threatens the public interest, we grant the motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law indefinitely during the pendency of its investigation. Further, we rem...