In the Matter of Kevin M. Dyer

• Decision Date: 20 October 2011
• Citation: 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07383,931 N.Y.S.2d 585,89 A.D.3d 182
• Parties: In the Matter of Kevin M. DYER, an attorney and counselor-at-law:Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,Kevin M. Dyer, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

89 A.D.3d 182
931 N.Y.S.2d 585
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 07383

In the Matter of Kevin M. DYER, an attorney and counselor-at-law:Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,Kevin M. Dyer, Respondent.

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

Oct. 20, 2011.

[931 N.Y.S.2d 585]

Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Ann E. Scherzer, of counsel), for petitioner.Michael S. Ross, for respondent.

[931 N.Y.S.2d 586]

ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI, Justice Presiding, JOHN W. SWEENY, JR., LELAND G. DEGRASSE, ROSALYN H. RICHTER, SALLIE MANZANET–DANIELS, Justices.PER CURIAM.

[89 A.D.3d 183] Respondent Kevin M. Dyer was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on April 15, 1985. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee opened an investigation after receiving notification from the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of a dishonored check from respondent's IOLA account. The Committee discovered numerous irregularities, including respondent's failure to maintain an adequate balance in his account, commingling personal business funds with client funds, frequent cash withdrawals and failure to maintain proper records for his IOLA account.

The Committee filed formal charges against respondent alleging that he: (1) commingled client funds with funds connected to his personal business in his IOLA account in violation of DR 9–102(A) and (B)(1); (2) failed to maintain adequate balances and overdrew his IOLA account in violation of DR 9–102(B)(1); (3) withdrew cash from his IOLA account in violation of DR 9–102(E); (4) failed to maintain proper records of escrow funds in violation of DR 9–102(C)(3) and (D)(1); and (5) engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1–102(A)(7). In his answer, respondent admitted all of the charges.

The Referee held a hearing at which time respondent, represented by counsel, appeared and admitted liability for all of the charges. Respondent testified on his own behalf and introduced the testimony of three character witnesses as well as several character letters. The Committee recommended that respondent be suspended for two years. Respondent requested that he by publicly censured. A Hearing Panel heard oral argument and [89 A.D.3d 184] in a report confirmed the Referee's findings and recommended sanction of censure.

The Committee now seeks an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 605.15(e) confirming the Hearing Panel's determination in its entirety and publicly censuring respondent.

The facts are not...