In Matter of Blyer 2025 NY Slip Op 04005 Decided on July 2, 2025 Appellate Division, Second Department
Per Curiam., the attorney did a lot of things commented on by the Appellate Division and the Referee. Amongst them was the failure to advise the client of a potential malpractice claim.
“The amended petition contains seven charges of professional misconduct concerning the respondent’s conduct during his law firm’s representation of Kathy Chiriboga in a personal injury action. Charges one through seven are based on the facts below:
The respondent is a partner at the law firm Blyer & Kurland, P.C. (hereinafter the law firm). In February 2018, the law firm represented Chiriboga in connection with a slip-and-fall accident that occurred on February 10, 2017. The law firm was to commence an action on Chiriboga’s behalf. The statute of limitations for the cause of action expired on February 10, 2020, and the law firm failed to commence an action before the statute of limitations expired.
On or about February 18, 2020, the respondent filed a summons and complaint in Supreme Court, Queens County, titled Chiriboga v Chopenko (Index No. 702814/2020). In the complaint, the respondent asserted that Chiriboga’s accident had occurred on February 20, 2017, rather than February 10, 2017. The respondent also signed the name of another attorney, Andrew Staulcup, to the summons, complaint, and the attorney’s verification without Staulcup’s knowledge or consent. On or about June 13, 2020, the respondent served the complaint on the defendant. On or about January 27, 2021, the respondent executed a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice in the action without Chiriboga’s consent. The respondent did not notify Chiriboga until on or about February 7, 2022, that her case had been discontinued with prejudice. As of March 31, 2022, the respondent had not informed Chiriboga that she may have a legal malpractice claim against the law firm.
Based on the foregoing, charge one, as amended, alleges that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of rule 1.3(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). Charge two alleges that the respondent failed to reasonably consult with his client about the means by which the client’s objectives were to be accomplished, in violation of rule 1.4(a)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Charge three alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct involving misrepresentation, in violation of rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Charge four, as amended, and charge six allege that the respondent failed to promptly inform his client of material developments in the client’s legal matter, in violation of rule 1.4(a)(1)(iii) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, charge four pertains to the respondent’s execution of the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without the client’s consent, and charge six pertains to the respondent’s failure to advise his client that she may have a legal malpractice claim against the law firm. Charge five alleges that the respondent failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter, in violation of rule 1.4(a)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Charge seven alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
“In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing and the respondent’s admissions, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained all seven charges in the amended petition. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report is granted. In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we have considered the respondent’s prior [*4]
disciplinary history for similar misconduct, his lack of remorse, the injury to the client, and the mitigation provided by the respondent.”