On Thursday, December 15, 2022, the State of New York, Supreme Court, Appellate Division of the Third Judicial Department ruled on the joint motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee and Respondent Albany attorney Cheryl Parsons Reul for the imposition of discipline upon the latter by consent over allegations of misappropriation of client funds.
The case, titled In the Matter of Cheryl Parsons Reul, was brought by the Attorney Grievance Committee. Case #PM-216-22.
The charges cited violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(c), and 8.4(c).
Reul conditionally admitted to having violated these rules by:
failing to maintain all of the client’s funds in her attorney escrow account from the date of their receipt until the date of the closing, as she withdrew a sum of the funds and place the same into her personal account; and
failing to promptly provide the client with the net sale proceeds from the sale until more than two weeks after the closing and that her conduct involves dishonesty, deceit, and/or misrepresentations.
The New York Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
According to the Memorandum and Order on Motion:
“By petition of charges marked returnable June 27, 2022, petitioner alleges that respondent has misappropriated funds entrusted to her by a client in connection with a 2016 real estate transaction. Respondent joined issue on June 22, 2022, and, by motion marked returnable October 17, 2022, the parties now jointly move for the imposition of discipline upon respondent by consent, proposing that this Court impose a suspension for her misconduct.”
The Memorandum and Order on Motion continue:
“The parties have submitted a joint motion that includes a stipulation of facts, the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and an agreement that the maximum sanction for respondent’s misconduct is a suspension for a period not to exceed three years subject to this Court’s discretion.”
The Court, in granting the motion of the AGC, stated among others:
“. . . respondent has a substantial disciplinary history before this Court, which
includes multiple instances similar to the ones described herein and, as such, we deem it to be a significant aggravating factor.
Notably, respondent was previously suspended for two years after she admitted to rule violations including commingling client funds, making cash withdrawals and issuing payments out of her escrow account, and issuing checks against insufficient funds.”
Based on the foregoing facts and admissions by Reul, the Court ruled in favor of the joint motion and agreed that the appropriate sanction is the maximum term agreed upon by the parties.
The disposition reads:
“ORDERED that the joint motion by the parties is granted, 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; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, 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, or to hold himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State; and it is further;
ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating the conduct of disbarred attorneys and shall duly certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance.”
Ms. Cheryl Parsons Reul has been licensed in New York, license no. 2113579.
