In this upstate 4th Department grievance/disciplinary case we see the effect an attorney can have on the lives of his clients.  Plaintiffs’ house burns down, and they retain this attorney to represent them.  He waits until the very last day to file, and then allows the case to be dismissed on discovery shortcomings.  The homeowners sue for legal malpractice and Judiciary Law 487, and win on default.  "Respondent did not contest the malpractice action, and a judgment was entered awarding the homeowners compensatory damages in the amount of $226,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $700,180.82. Respondent failed to appear in response to a subpoena for a judgment debtor examination and failed to respond to an order to show cause brought by the homeowners seeking an order finding him in contempt." 

Respondent raised as affirmative defenses and in mitigation of the misconduct that he began suffering from severe depression in 2005, but ignored advice to seek mental health treatment until 2007; that he did not contest the legal malpractice judgment, including the finding of intentional deceit, because he had been advised by a pro bono attorney to allow the homeowners to obtain a default judgment against him to enable them to recover damages from his malpractice insurer and he was unaware that they were seeking treble damages; and that he did not respond to the subsequent judgment debtor subpoena or order to show cause for contempt because he mistakenly believed that an agreement had been reached with the homeowners pursuant to which the default judgment would not be executed against respondent in his individual capacity. "

In determining an appropriate sanction, we have considered respondent’s previously unblemished record during his 22 years of practicing law and his expression of remorse. Respondent, however, has committed serious misconduct that caused harm to his clients. In particular, we have considered that respondent’s neglect of the fire insurance matter and his deceit in trying to conceal that neglect deprived the homeowners of an opportunity to retain new counsel who could have acted in a timely manner to preserve their claim for damages. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be suspended for three years and until further order of the Court. "