In the Matter of Reynold N. Mason

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals accepted a judicial conduct sanction removing Supreme Court Justice Reynold N. Mason from office. The Court sustained findings that Mason commingled rent proceeds with client or escrow funds, used the escrow account for personal expenses, failed to cooperate with the Commission's investigation, and provided inconsistent explanations. The Court conducted its own review and concluded that removal was the appropriate sanction.

Holdings

1. The federal district court's decision invalidating Rules Governing Judicial Conduct sections 100.1 and 100.2 did not require dismissal of the proceeding or vacatur of the Commission's determination, particularly because petitioner did not raise a constitutional challenge before the Commission or in his brief to the Court of Appeals.
2. An attorney may not commingle personal funds with funds held in trust for clients or others or use an attorney escrow account to pay personal expenses; Mason's prolonged commingling and repeated personal disbursements constituted serious misconduct.
3. Persistent failure to cooperate with the Commission's investigation and inconsistent or evasive explanations materially compounded the escrow-account misconduct.
4. A Commission decision denying reconsideration is not reviewable by the Court of Appeals, and the Court may not review materials submitted with a postdetermination motion that were not considered by the Commission; review is limited to the record before the Commission at the time of its original determination.
5. Removal from office was the appropriate sanction for Mason's prolonged and repeated escrow-account misuse, continuation of the conduct after taking the bench, failure to cooperate, and lack of candor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a federal district court decision invalidating Rules Governing Judicial Conduct sections 100.1 and 100.2 required dismissal of the disciplinary proceeding and vacatur of the Commission's determination.
2. Whether Mason's commingling and personal use of funds deposited in his attorney escrow account constituted misconduct warranting removal.
3. Whether Mason's failure to cooperate with the Commission's investigation and his inconsistent explanations compounded the misconduct.
4. Whether the Court could review allegations and materials presented only in a postdetermination motion alleging prejudgment by a Commission member.
5. Whether removal was an appropriate sanction based on the record.

Disposition

approved