Summary
This Appellate Division, Second Department opinion addresses a formal disciplinary proceeding against attorney Max William Spaeth for five charges of professional misconduct involving his attorney trust account. The respondent misappropriated and commingled client funds, made improper disbursements via personal payment applications, and failed to maintain separate fiduciary accounts, violating multiple Rules of Professional Conduct. After a hearing and a Special Referee's report sustaining all charges, the Court granted the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the findings and suspended Spaeth from the practice of law for two years.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report should be granted
- What discipline is appropriate for the respondent's misconduct
Holdings
- The motion is granted; the Special Referee's findings are affirmed.
- The respondent is suspended from the practice of law for two years, effective immediately, and may not apply for reinstatement before March 1, 2027.
Key quotations
“Respondent [cannot] escape the fact that the funds he extracted from [the] escrow account were removed with intent and for his own benefit. Respondent states that his conduct was due to various factors that affected his ability to manage his accounts, including that he had surgery on his dominant hand and was impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. He cannot argue that he made a mistake or that he did not know his actions were wrong. Using these escrow funds for such things as paying for rent, dinners, drinks, Amazon purchases, and paying back money he owed to friends all serve to indicate that he was only thinking of himself.”
Factual background
Attorney Max William Spaeth misappropriated client escrow funds by maintaining insufficient balances, commingling personal funds, making improper disbursements via Venmo, Zelle, and wire transfers, and failing to keep separate fiduciary accounts, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Procedural history
The Grievance Committee filed a petition with five charges of misconduct. A Special Referee sustained all charges. The Committee then moved to confirm the report. The respondent did not oppose. The Appellate Division considered the motion and the record.