
    In the Matter of Stewart Rosenberg, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.
    [ 907 NYS2d 713 ]
   Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1972. He maintains an office for the practice of law in the Town of Liberty, Sullivan County.

Having granted petitioner’s motion for an order declaring that no factual issues are raised by the pleadings (see 22 NYCRR 806.5) and having heard respondent in mitigation, we now find that he engaged in professional misconduct as set forth in the petition of charges in violation of the relevant provisions of the former Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Professional Conduct (see Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [a], [b] [1]; [c], [d], [e] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (4), (5), (7); 1200.46 (a), (b) (1); (c), (d), (e)]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [a], [b] [1]; [c], [d], [e]; rule 8.4 [c], [d], [h]). Most seriously, respondent admitted that he improperly used his escrow account to pay personal bills after his attorney operating account was closed by the bank in September 2008. He also failed to maintain required escrow account records and books, which may have contributed to other misconduct, such as the issuance of checks against insufficient funds from his escrow account, his inaccurate testimony concerning the escrow account at an examination under oath before petitioner, and his failure to promptly and completely cooperate with petitioner’s investigation. Respondent also improperly issued two checks payable to cash from his escrow account, has not paid the stenographic bills for his examinations under oath pursuant to subpoena (see 22 NYCRR 806.4 [e]), and has failed to comply with the attorney registration requirements (see Judiciary Law § 468-a; 22 NYCRR 118.1).

Respondent’s misconduct is mitigated by his good professional reputation, as evidenced by several character letters submitted on his behalf, his unblemished disciplinary record, his recent health issues, and especially the lack of any evidence of complaints from clients that they have been harmed as the result of respondent’s misconduct or that any funds entrusted to him have been misappropriated.

Under all of the circumstances presented, we conclude that respondent’s misconduct, especially his misuse of his escrow account, warrants his suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year.

Cardona, EJ., Peters, Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct set forth in the petition of charges; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective 20 days from the date of this decision, and until further order of the Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 806.9). 
      
       The alleged misconduct occurred prior to and after April 1, 2009, the effective date of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
     