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

209 A.D.3d 137

174 N.Y.S.3d 377

In the MATTER OF Stephen L. FOX, (Admitted as Stephen Lawrence Fox), a suspended attorney and counselor-at law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,

v.Stephen L. Fox, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 2310274), Respondent.

Motion No. 2022-01909

Case No. 2021-00782

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

Entered September 13, 2022

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

Respondent, pro se.

Dianne T. Renwick, J.P., Barbara R. Kapnick, Anil C. Singh, Lizbeth González, Tanya R. Kennedy, JJ.

Per Curiam

Respondent Stephen L. Fox was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on February 5, 1990, under the name Stephen Lawrence Fox. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he maintained an office in Connecticut. This Court maintains jurisdiction based upon his admission for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department (Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [a] [2]).

In February 2021, the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) sought respondent's immediate suspension from the practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) based upon his failure to cooperate with the Committee's sua sponte investigation into three checks totaling $16,458 issued from his IOLA account that were dishonored due to insufficient funds.

By order entered June 29, 2021 ( Matter of Fox , 197 A.D.3d 36, 148 N.Y.S.3d 209 [1st Dept. 2021] ), this Court granted the motion pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3), and immediately suspended respondent from the practice of law and until further order of the Court. This Court found an interim suspension was warranted where respondent failed to comply with Committee's lawful demands for bookkeeping records and other documents pursuant to its investigation of the dishonored checks. While respondent partially cooperated by producing some of the requested bookkeeping records and appearing for a deposition, he had not produced the bulk of the records, including his ledger and retainer agreements.

On July 1, 2021, the Committee served respondent with a notice of entry enclosing a copy of this Court's order of suspension. The notice of entry was served on counsel for respondent by email, priority mail and certified return receipt requested. Respondent responded by email confirming receipt.

On January 10, 2022, the Committee sought an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), without further proceedings, on the ground that he had neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension.

In opposition to the Committee's motion, respondent, appearing pro se, filed a cross motion seeking an order vacating his interim suspension and reinstating him to the practice of law while he cooperates with the Committee in the underlying matter. Respondent asserted that he "was the victim of a well-documented sophisticated scam that has robbed me of my family and professional life, home, credibility and finances." Specifically, respondent claimed that he has been a victim of a "Haitian related crime gang" and that his fear stopped him from cooperating with the Committee's investigation.

By order entered March 17, 2022, this Court denied the Committee's motion to disbar, albeit "with leave to renew, should respondent fail to comply with the outstanding investigative demands and provide the information and documents requested ... [by] the Committee within thirty (30) days from the date of service upon him of a copy of this order, with notice of entry." By the same order, this Court also denied respondent's cross motion.

Pursuant to this Court's order, on March 18, 2022, the Committee served respondent with notice of entry of our March 17, 2022, order by email and priority mail, which respondent has acknowledged having received.

Now the Committee renews its motion for an order disbarring respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), on the ground that he has neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of the order of suspension (June 29, 2021) and has failed to fully comply with the Committee's investigative requests and the Court's subpoena "notwithstanding having received an additional 30 days to do so."

The Committee sets forth a list of the documents requested during respondent's deposition in January 2020, which he has still failed to provide: 1) bank statements for respondent's operating account for September and October 2018; 2) an affidavit from his client (JP) as to the investment transaction at issue and evidence that the client was aware that the borrower had defaulted and that he was repaid from respondent's personal funds; 3) emails from the alleged defaulting party memorializing that respondent was trying to obtain funds from him; 4) an affidavit from the bank teller whom respondent purportedly instructed to cancel the three dishonored escrow checks that triggered the Committee's investigation; 5) evidence that he was a victim of financial fraud which...