Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion to immediately suspend Anthony Servall Chilliest from practicing law. The court found sufficient evidence of approximately $210,000 in escrow-fund conversion or misappropriation and determined that his failure to answer complaints, appear for examination, and produce requested documents warranted interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1), (3), and (5). The suspension remains effective until further order of the court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether testimonial and documentary evidence sufficiently established conversion or misappropriation of escrow funds to warrant an immediate interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(5).
- Whether respondent's failures to answer complaints, appear for examination, and produce subpoenaed documents warranted an immediate interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3).
- Whether the record sufficiently established the venal intent required for intentional conversion under New York Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) based on the alleged undisclosed loan disbursement.
Holdings
- The Attorney Grievance Committee met its burden under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(5) because witness testimony and bank records sufficiently evinced that respondent converted or misappropriated approximately $210,000 in escrow funds.
- Respondent's failure to answer the two complaints, appear for a deposition or examination, and produce specified documents as directed by the Attorney Grievance Committee and judicial subpoena warranted interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3).
- The present record did not sufficiently establish the venal intent required for intentional conversion under Rule 8.4(c) based on the alleged failure to disclose the respondent's relationships and the allegedly unauthorized $140,000 disbursement.
Key quotations
“However, this alleged misconduct does not, based on the present record, sufficiently establish the "venal intent" required for intentional conversion under rule 8.4(c), i.e., "evidence that the attorney knowingly withdrew IOLA or escrow funds, without permission or authority, and that he used said funds for his own purposes"” ([*1])
“Accordingly, AGC's motion should be granted and respondent suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.” ([*1])
Factual background
Respondent represented an estate in the sale of a residential apartment and was alleged to have deposited part of the buyer's down payment into business accounts and distributed sale proceeds before completion of Surrogate's Court proceedings. In a separate real estate transaction, testimonial and bank-record evidence indicated that respondent converted or misappropriated approximately $210,000 in escrow funds. The record also showed that respondent failed to answer two complaints, appear for an examination or deposition, and produce documents requested by the Attorney Grievance Committee and required by subpoena.
Procedural history
The Attorney Grievance Committee served respondent with disciplinary charges in October 2023. After initially moving for a default determination, the Committee was directed to permit respondent to answer; respondent filed an answer denying the charges. The court later appointed a referee to conduct a hearing on all charges, and that hearing concluded. While the disciplinary matter remained pending, the Committee moved for respondent's immediate interim suspension based on alleged escrow-fund conversion or misappropriation and failures to cooperate with the investigation. The Appellate Division granted the motion.