In re Caruso

205 A.D.3d 1264

167 N.Y.S.3d 657

In the MATTER OF Becky Leigh CARUSO, an Attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 2358166)

PM-104-22

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

Calendar Date: April 11, 2022

Decided and Entered: May 19, 2022

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Anna E. Remet of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Becky Leigh Caruso, Windsor, respondent pro se.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1990 and presently resides in the Town of Windsor, Broome County.¹

Alleging, among other things, that respondent has been uncooperative in its investigation of a client complaint against her, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) has moved for respondent's interim suspension. Respondent was thereafter heard in response to the motion, and AGC submitted papers in reply. Upon our consideration of the parties’ submissions, we issued a February 2022 confidential order directing respondent to comply, by March 28, 2022, with AGC's request for her full office file as well as invoices and other billing documentation pertaining to the client at issue. In so adjourning AGC's motion, we pointedly advised respondent that any failure to satisfy our directive could result in her immediate suspension without further notice. By correspondence dated April 4, 2022, AGC has advised that it still has not received the requested documentation which respondent was directed to provide and, despite being noticed of AGC's April 2022 correspondence, respondent has not since offered any further response to either AGC or to this Court.

AGC has broad authority to obtain records and documentation in furtherance of its investigative responsibilities, and this prerogative includes the discretion to compel a respondent under investigation to produce his or her client file and any other documents which, in the view of AGC, are germane to its inquiry (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [b]). Furthermore, in order to insure compliance with its investigative requests, AGC is empowered to seek a respondent's immediate suspension from practice upon a showing that the respondent has failed to comply with a lawful demand by AGC and has consequently engaged in conduct which threatens the public interest (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a][3]; see also Matter of DiStefano, 154 A.D.3d 1055, 1056–1057, 61 N.Y.S.3d 514 [2017] ).

In the instant case, respondent has exhibited a demonstrated pattern of noncompliance with AGC's investigative inquiries and, on those occasions where she has been nominally cooperative with AGC's requests, her disclosures are typically untimely and inadequate or incomplete. For instance, it was only after AGC filed the instant motion seeking respondent's interim suspension that respondent saw fit to provide a written response to the client complaint now under investigation by AGC. Nevertheless, upon our initial consideration of the parties’ submissions and, in particular, the circumstances set forth by respondent, we saw fit to afford respondent a final opportunity to fully comply with AGC's lawful requests for information. Respondent has not availed herself of this final opportunity and has instead clearly demonstrated conduct which immediately threatens the public interest through not only her willful failure to comply with AGC's requests, but also by her direct contravention of the explicit terms of this Court's prior order (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a][3]). Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law, effective immediately (see Matter of Tomney, 175 A.D.3d 810, 810–811, 103 N.Y.S.3d 879 [2019] ).

Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, ...