Opinion
January 18, 2001.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on September 8, 1993.
James T. Shed, of counsel (Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Before: Angela M. Mazzarelli, Justice Presiding, Richard T. Andrias Richard W. Wallach, David B. Saxe, John T. Buckley, Justices.
Respondent, Carl J. Casano, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on September 8, 1993. Respondent maintains an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Department Disciplinary Committee has moved for an order immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court based upon 22 NYCRR § 603.4(e)(1)(i) due to his willful failure to cooperate with the Committee in its investigation of allegations of professional misconduct. On August 2 and August 29, 1999, the Committee received two dishonored check reports from the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection advising that a total of three checks written on respondent's IOLA escrow account were returned for insufficient funds. Between August 1999 and August 2000, respondent consistently failed to respond to letters, failed to produce specific documents relating to his IOLA account which he agreed to produce, failed to respond to telephone messages and failed to produce subpoenaed documents as agreed. Despite numerous extensions and recent letters confirming his obligation to cooperate with the Committee, respondent has wilfully failed to cooperate to provide documents and to appear for a court ordered deposition. His conduct evinces a shocking disregard for the judicial system, and can only be interpreted as a deliberate and willful effort to impede" the Committee's investigation (see, Matter of Fine, 263 A.D.2d 262; and, Matter of Rennie, 260 A.D.2d 132, 135). This conduct warrants immediate suspension from the practice of law (Matter of Hickey, 231 A.D.2d 174).
Accordingly, the petition for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 603.4(e)(1) should be granted, and respondent immediately suspended pending further order of this Court.
All concur.