Loan Ranger

The New York Appellate Division for the Fourth Judicial Department has disbarred an attorney for misconduct in multiple matters

In determining an appropriate sanction, we have considered numerous aggravating factors, including that the aforementioned letter of caution and admonition arose from conduct similar to that at issue in this case, including representing differing interests in a legal matter and taking a personal loan from a client, failing to make required loan payments, and failing to adequately advise the client regarding his own defaults. Moreover, the record establishes that respondent has engaged in a pattern of initiating self-interested transactions with clients or breaching his legal and ethical obligations to clients, thereby causing them direct harm or substantial prejudice, in many cases for his own benefit or personal gain. Of particular concern is that respondent targeted clients who were likely to be vulnerable to his manipulation, including the elderly or individuals inexperienced in financial matters. We also conclude that respondent’s submissions to this Court offer various explanations for his conduct at issue in this proceeding that are unpersuasive or lack credibility, which in our view demonstrates his lack of remorse and inability to acknowledge the extent of his wrongdoing. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent is unfit to practice law and should be disbarred.

Among the violations

With respect to the first such client matter, respondent admits that he borrowed $30,000 from a client in February 1999 pursuant to a promissory note, without providing security for the debt or advising the client to seek the advice of independent counsel. The client died in 2008. Respondent admits that, in March 2008, he prepared an instrument whereby one of the client’s surviving children transferred his interest in the promissory note to his two sisters. Respondent further admits that he transferred the loan to the sisters without legal authority to do so and despite the fact that a Surrogate’s Court proceeding had not been commenced on behalf of the estate of the deceased client. Respondent admits that, from 2008 through 2021,he failed to make timely payments to the two sisters or advise them of his own delinquency. Respondent further admits that, in April 2022, he sent checks to the two sisters indicating he was satisfying his obligations under the promissory note, together with a general release. Respondent admits that the two sisters consulted independent counsel, after which respondent sent payments to them that were not identified as “payment in full.” Respondent admits that, as of the date of the supplemental petition, he had failed to pay the balance of the amount due and owing under the promissory note.

Respondent also solicited and accepted loans from other clients

With respect to the second client matter specified in the supplemental petition, respondent admits that, in September 1998, he solicited a loan from two clients, a married couple, by presenting the loan as an “investment mortgage” paying interest at a rate higher than the prevailing market rate for certificates of deposit. Respondent admits that, in December 1998, he borrowed $20,000 from the clients without providing security for the loan, advising them to seek the advice of independent counsel, or executing a promissory note. The husband died in 2004. Respondent admits that, from December 2013 through December 2022, he failed to make the agreed-upon loan payments and did not disclose his delinquency to the remaining client. Respondent admits that, after the wife died in 2020, he transferred his loan obligation to the clients’ two children, without legal authority to do so and despite the fact that the loan was an asset of the wife’s estate and a Surrogate’s Court proceeding had not been commenced on her behalf. Respondent admits that, in April 2022, he sent checks to the clients’ children alleging that the debt was paid in full, together with general releases, which neither child executed.

With respect to the third client matter specified in the supplemental petition, respondent admits that, from June through November 2001, he borrowed a total of $28,000 from a client pursuant to three loan agreements, each having a five-year repayment plan. Respondent admits that he did not advise the client to seek the advice of independent counsel with respect to any of those transactions. Respondent further admits that, in 2007, he prepared a will and revocable trust for the client, who was unmarried and had no children. Respondent admits that, from October 2011 through April 2014, he failed to make any payments to the client, but in May 2014 he made a lump-sum payment to the client in excess of $24,000. Respondent admits that the lump-sum payment did not represent the full amount he owed to the client, and that, as of the date of the supplemental petition, he had not made any payments to the client since May 2014.

(Mike Frisch)