State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 1, 2016 D-67-16 

___________________________________

In the Matter of GASPAR M.

CASTILLO, a Suspended Attorney.

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL

DEPARTMENT,

Petitioner; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GASPAR M. CASTILLO,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 1701606)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: November 14, 2016

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third

Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for

petitioner.

Dennis B. Schlenker, Albany, for respondent.

__________

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1981

and maintained an office for the practice of law in the City of

Albany. By memorandum and order dated June 9, 2016, this Court

found respondent guilty of professional misconduct immediately

threatening the public interest and suspended him from the

practice of law pending consideration of disciplinary charges

against him pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, Third

Department (22 NYCRR) former § 806.4 (f) (140 AD3d 1392 [2016];
-2- D-67-16 

see Uniform Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR]

§ 1240.9 [eff. Oct. 1, 2016]).1 This finding was based upon

respondent's failure to properly maintain client funds and an

escrow account, his commingling of personal funds in his attorney

trust account, his failure to, upon request, promptly pay or

deliver certain funds to his client that he or she was entitled

to receive, his failure to maintain required bookkeeping records

and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of

justice (140 AD3d at 1393). 

Upon respondent's demand for a prompt postsuspension

hearing, petitioner thereafter filed a petition of charges, dated

July 20, 2016, charging respondent with 11 charges of

professional misconduct. Respondent answered and the parties

subsequently agreed that no factual issues were raised by the

pleadings. Accordingly, we find respondent guilty of

professional misconduct as charged in the petition.

In mitigation, respondent accepts responsibility and

expresses his sincere remorse for his professional misconduct. 

Respondent also cites certain mental health issues that he was

suffering from during the relevant time period for which he is

presently seeking treatment. We credit the numerous letters from

clients, clergy and fellow attorneys lauding his good character

and reputation as an attorney. Respondent has also returned the

client funds that he admitted to misappropriating. In

aggravation, respondent has admittedly engaged in serious

professional misconduct and has a history of prior discipline

with regard to the improper use of his escrow account and

neglecting client matters. Now, having heard respondent's

arguments in mitigation and petitioner's arguments in

aggravation, we conclude that, under the circumstances presented,

in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity

of the profession and deter others from committing similar

misconduct, respondent's grave misconduct warrants his suspension

1 By August 18, 2016 order, respondent has also been

suspended from the practice of law by this Court for six months

due to discipline imposed against him by the Second Circuit Court

of Appeals (142 AD3d 729 [2016]).
-3- D-67-16 

from the practice of law for a period of three years (see Matter

of Crumb, 66 AD3d 1323, 1323 [2009]; Matter of Gold, 64 AD3d 990,

991-992 [2009]; Matter of Haas, 3 AD3d 732, 732 [2004]). 

We further direct that, upon any application for

reinstatement, respondent shall demonstrate, in addition to the

requirements set forth in Uniform Rules for Attorney Disciplinary

Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.16, his completion during the period of

his suspension of 12 credit hours of accredited continuing legal

education (hereinafter CLE) in ethics and professionalism and 12

credit hours of CLE in law practice management, in addition to

the CLE requirements of all attorneys (see Rules of App Div, 3d

Dept [22 NYCRR] part 1500]), and documentation establishing

respondent's satisfaction of this condition shall be provided to

petitioner upon completion of the CLE. Additionally, respondent

shall, until further order of this Court, continue his

participation in mental health counseling with his present mental

health provider and respondent shall ensure that petitioner

receives quarterly reports from his mental health provider,

confirming that he is participating in a mental health program. 

Should respondent need to substitute a different mental health

provider in the future, such substitution may only be had upon

petitioner's consent or upon order of this Court.

McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Rose, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of the professional

misconduct as set forth in the petition of charges; and it is

further

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of

law for a period of three years, effective immediately, and until

further order of this Court (see generally Uniform Rules for

Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16); and it is

further
-4- D-67-16 

ORDERED that, for the period of suspension, 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

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of

the Uniform Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating

the conduct of suspended attorneys (see Uniform Rules for

Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15).

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court