Kramer, Matter of
| Decision Date | 24 September 1998 |
| Citation | 677 N.Y.S.2d 576,247 A.D.2d 81 |
| Parties | , 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 7976 In the Matter of Steven M. KRAMER (admitted as Steven Michael Kramer), a suspended attorney. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Steven M. Kramer, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Richard Supple, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel), for petitioner.
Steven Kramer, of counsel (Steven Kramer & Associates, attorneys), for respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ROSENBERGER, WALLACH, WILLIAMS and MAZZARELLI, JJ.
Respondent Steven M. Kramer was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on December 18, 1984 as Steven Michael Kramer. Respondent was admitted to the New Jersey Bar in 1983. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
Over the past 11 years, respondent has been sanctioned, criticized, or otherwise disciplined 38 times for professional misconduct involving numerous clients (see Kramer v. Tribe, 156 F.R.D. 96 [D NJ] [citing cases], affd. 52 F.3d 315 [3d Cir], cert. denied 516 U.S. 907, 116 S.Ct. 274, 133 L.Ed.2d 195). In our decision dated October 16, 1997 (Matter of Kramer, 235 A.D.2d 87, 664 N.Y.S.2d 1, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 805, 668 N.Y.S.2d 560, 691 N.E.2d 632), we temporarily suspended respondent from the practice of law and referred the matter back to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors and recommendation of the appropriate sanction. The Committee now moves for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4(d) confirming the Hearing Panel's findings and its recommendation that respondent be disbarred.
The facts giving rise to respondent's suspension are outlined in more detail in our previous decision (id. at 88-90, 664 N.Y.S.2d 1). In connection with his representation of Helen Selby before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, respondent was sanctioned for willful disobedience of discovery orders, as well as for making false statements in affidavits. He also refused to accept being dismissed by his client, and went so far as to file an unauthorized appeal and a subsequent petition for rehearing on her behalf.
This pattern of resistance to a client's wishes was repeated during his representation of Jon E. DeLuca in New Jersey. Several times, respondent prevailed upon his ailing client to allow respondent to continue to litigate a weak case instead of accepting the other side's settlement offer. Once again, even after being relieved as counsel, respondent tried to block the parties' efforts to settle.
In determining whether to recommend disbarment, the Hearing Panel considered the recent misconduct described above, plus numerous other past instances of respondent's deliberate non-compliance with discovery orders and his contempt for the ethical rules of his profession. An abbreviated survey of respondent's long history of official reprimands reveals a whole repertoire of habitual misdeeds: refusing to cease acting on behalf of a client who has dismissed him (e.g., Matter of Kramer, 193 A.D.2d 222, 602 N.Y.S.2d 831); flagrantly violating discovery orders (e.g., International Mining Co. v. Allen & Co., 567 F.Supp. 777, 789-90 [SD NY] ); filing frivolous claims (e.g., LeMaster v. Bull, 581 F.Supp. 1170, 1173 [ED Pa]; Giordano v. Witzer, 558 F.Supp. 1261, 1262 [ED Pa] ); and making false statements to the court (e.g., Silverman v. Weil, 662 F.Supp. 1195, 1201 [D.D.C. 1987], affd. 839 F.2d 824 [DC Cir]; Rubin v. Buckman, 727 F.2d 71, 72 [3d Cir] ). The above citations are by no means a comprehensive list of the occasions on which respondent has been called to task for employing such tactics.
At the hearing before the Committee, as mitigating evidence, respondent presented eight character witnesses, seven of whom were former clients. While those witnesses spoke highly of respondent, the Hearing Panel also took into account the fact that the witnesses were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Departmental Disciplinary Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Zweig (In re (Admitted)
...unauthorized disbursement of client funds, impermissible conflict of interest with client in a financial transaction]; Matter of Kramer, 247 A.D.2d 81, 677 N.Y.S.2d 576 [1st Dept.1998],lv. denied93 N.Y.3d 883, 689 N.Y.S.2d 425, 711 N.E.2d 639 [1999],cert. denied528 U.S. 869, 120 S.Ct. 169, ......
-
In re Kramer
......2002) ("A state court determination of disbarment.. is not conclusively binding on the federal courts.") (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we explained, "while federal courts generally lack subject matter" jurisdiction to review the state court decisions, .. a federal court may `examine a state court disciplinary proceeding if the state court's order is offered as the basis for suspending or disbarring an attorney from practice before a federal court.'\" Id. at 1132-33. We then observed that. \xC2"......
-
In re Frelix
...advancing unwarranted claims, failure to cooperate with the Committee, and failure to fully accept responsibility]; Matter of Kramer, 247 A.D.2d 81, 677 N.Y.S.2d 576 [1st Dept.1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 883, 689 N.Y.S.2d 425, 711 N.E.2d 639 [1999], cert. denied 528 U.S. 869, 120 S.Ct. 169,......
-
Departmental Disciplinary Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Frelix (In re (Admitted)
...advancing unwarranted claims, failure to cooperate with the Committee, and failure to fully accept responsibility]; Matter of Kramer, 247 A.D.2d 81, 677 N.Y.S.2d 576 [1st Dept.1998], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 883, 689 N.Y.S.2d 425, 711 N.E.2d 639 [1999], cert. denied528 U.S. 869, 120 S.Ct. 169, ......