State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: August 21, 2014 D-40-14 

___________________________________

In the Matter of PAMELA A. 

CROCKETT, a Suspended 

Attorney.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANDARDS,

Petitioner;

PAMELA A. CROCKETT,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 2629574)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: June 23, 2014 

Before: Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for petitioner.

Pamela A. Crockett, Lanham, Maryland, respondent pro se.

__________

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994. 

She was admitted to practice in Maryland in 2004, where she

maintains an office for the practice of law.

By petition dated October 4, 2013, petitioner charged

respondent with 10 charges of professional misconduct alleging

neglect of a client matter and failure to provide competent

representation (see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR

6-101 [a] [former 22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a); Rules of Professional
-2- D-40-14 

Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.1 [a], [b]; 1.3 [b]),1 failure

to communicate with her client (see former Code of Professional

Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5] [former 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5)];

Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.4, 8.4

[d]), improper handling and conversion of the settlement check

and funds (see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR

1-102 [a] [4], [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [a], [c] [1], [4] [former 22

NYCRR 1200.3 (a), (4), (5), (7); 1200.46 (a), (c) (1), (4)];

Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [c],

[d], [h]; 1.15 [a], [c] [1], [4]), commingling personal and

client funds (see former Code of Professional Responsibility DR

1-102 [a] [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [a] [former 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5),

(7); 1200.46 (a)]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR

1200.0] rules 1.15 [a]; 8.4 [d], [h]), failure to maintain

complete attorney escrow account records and render accounts (see

former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5], [7];

DR 9-102 [c] [1], [3]; [d] [former 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5), (7);

1200.46 (c) (1), (3); (d)]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22

NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.15 [c] [1], [3]; [d]; 8.4 [d], [h]),

failure to produce escrow account records as requested by

petitioner (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0]

rule 1.15 [i]), failure to comply with the rules regarding the

disbursement of funds for missing clients (see former Code of

Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 [f] [former 22 NYCRR 1200.46

(f); Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15

[f]), failure to deposit client funds in an appropriately titled

and functioning attorney escrow account (see Judiciary Law § 497;

former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 9-102 [b] [former

22 NYCRR 1200.3, 1200.46 (b)]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22

NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [b]), failure to maintain an attorney

escrow account in compliance with appropriate rules (see former

Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5]; DR 9-102

[b] [1] [former 22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5); 1200.46 (b) (1)]; Rules

of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.15 [b] [1]), and

1 Some of the charges herein involve conduct occurring

before and after April 1, 2009, the effective date of the Rules

of Professional Conduct, and thus both the Rules of Professional

Conduct and the former Code of Professional Responsibility are

applicable.
-3- D-40-14 

failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements for

the 2010-2011 and 2012-2013 biennial periods as required by

Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator (22

NYCRR) § 118.1 (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR

1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]).

Respondent filed an answer in which she admitted six of the

charges in their entirety and made both admissions and denials

with respect to the remaining four charges. By order dated March

6, 2014, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law

pursuant to this Court's rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.4 [f]) pending

consideration of the disciplinary charges filed against her

(Matter of Crockett, 115 AD3d 1051 [2014]). After a hearing

pursuant to this Court's rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.5), the Referee

sustained the petition in its entirety. Petitioner now moves to

confirm the Referee's report. Respondent has not responded to

the motion.

We find that a fair preponderance of the evidence supports

the Referee's determination and we, therefore, grant petitioner's

motion and confirm the Referee's report with respect to the

charges in the petition (see Matter of Galvin, 87 AD3d 1223

[2011]). In addition, we find respondent guilty of the

professional misconduct as charged and specified in the petition

(see Matter of Coleman, 116 AD3d 1219 [2014]).

Turning to the appropriate disciplinary sanction for

respondent's serious professional misconduct, we initially note

that petitioner has not referenced any prior disciplinary

history, and the subject charges primarily concerned only one

client who was negligently and incompetently represented. 

Nevertheless, respondent clearly converted and mishandled client

funds, and the record further demonstrates cause for concern

relative to respondent's knowledge, ethics and practice in this

state. Accordingly, in order to protect the public, deter

similar misconduct and preserve the reputation of the bar, we

conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of

law for a period of one year (see Matter of Gallagher, 112 AD3d

1057 [2013]; Matter of Davis, 106 AD3d 1184 [2013]). 

Furthermore, we direct that, upon any application for

reinstatement, in addition to the requirements set forth in our
-4- D-40-14 

rules (see 22 NYCRR 806.12 [b]), respondent submit documentation

that, during the period of suspension, she has come into

compliance with all attorney registration requirements and

completed four credit hours of accredited continuing legal

education (hereinafter CLE) in ethics and professionalism, four

credit hours of CLE in law practice management and four credit

hours of CLE in New York practice, all in addition to the CLE

required of all attorneys in this state (see 22 NYCRR part 1500). 

Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that petitioner's motion to confirm the Referee's

report is granted; and it is further 

ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of the professional

misconduct charged and specified in the petition of charges; and

it is further 

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of

law for a period of one year, effective immediately, and until

further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that, while so suspended from practice, respondent

is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in

any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of

another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an

attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice,

board, commission or other public authority, or to give to

another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any

advice in relation thereto; and it is further
-5- D-40-14 

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of

this Court's rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys

(see 22 NYCRR 806.9).

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court