Matter of Fisher
Decision Date | 26 June 2007 |
Docket Number | M-1500. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 05575,43 A.D.3d 173,839 N.Y.S.2d 462 |
Parties | In the Matter of JONATHAN B. FISHER (Admitted as JONATHAN BRUCE FISHER), an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Jorge Dopico of counsel), for petitioner.
Jonathan B. Fisher, respondent pro se.
Respondent Jonathan B. Fisher was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on April 24, 1991. At all relevant times herein, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
On January 11, 2006, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) filed charges against respondent alleging that he: (1) commingled and misappropriated client funds in violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 (a) (22 NYCRR 1200.46), (2) used his escrow account as a personal and business account in violation of DR 9-102 (b), (3) failed to keep a proper ledger for client funds in violation of DR 9-102 (d), (4) issued checks payable to "cash" from his escrow account in violation of DR 9-102 (e), and (5) failed to safeguard escrow funds entrusted to him as a fiduciary, constituting conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3). The charges stem from respondent's depositing of client funds and his fees into the "master account" of his attorney trust account (the account) and his use of the commingled funds for personal and business expenses. Respondent subsequently overdrew the account on one occasion. Additionally, respondent failed to keep a proper ledger of the account. In both his answer and a prehearing stipulation, respondent admitted all of the charges.
A Hearing Panel, confirming a Referee's report, sustained the charges and adopted the parties' joint recommendation of public censure. The Panel noted that respondent, who has no disciplinary history, cooperated with the investigation and was extremely remorseful. It found that respondent's commingling and misappropriation of client funds was unintentional, the result of poor judgment and the failure to fully understand the nature of the account he had opened. The Panel also noted that the lone overdraw on the account occurred after respondent mistakenly overpaid a client, an overpayment that respondent did not seek to recoup. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Dep'tal Disciplinary Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Katz (In re Katz)
- Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Novofastovsky (In re Novofastovsky)
- In re Reid
-
In re Novofastovsky
...2022 NY Slip Op 00817 In the Matter of Ilya Novofastovsky, an Attorney and Counselor-at Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Ilya ... Rosenberg, 109 A.D.3d 225 [1st Dept 2013]; Matter of ... Francis, 78 A.D.3d 106 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of ... Fisher, 43 A.D.3d 173 [1st Dept 2007]). The parties ... argue that respondent's case is similar to those of the ... attorneys in our precedents ... ...