On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department suspended attorney Richard John Wright from practicing law due to his ongoing failure to cooperate with an investigation by the Attorney Grievance Committee. This suspension is effective immediately and will remain in place until further notice from the court.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Richard John Wright,” with case no. 2024-04216.
Wright has faced disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. The committee’s action stems from allegations that Wright failed to produce essential bookkeeping records and other documentation as required under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition, Wright admitted to taking more than the permitted contingency fee in personal injury cases and providing financial assistance to clients without appropriate disclosures.
The investigation began when the committee received a notification from the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection regarding a dishonored check for $140,000 drawn from Wright’s attorney escrow account in November 2019. The check was returned due to insufficient funds. Following this, a complaint was lodged against Wright by a former client, V.R., alleging that he failed to release escrow funds associated with a property partition case.
In response to the committee’s requests for an explanation and documentation related to the dishonored check, Wright provided incomplete records and failed to submit the required bookkeeping materials. The committee formally requested documentation multiple times between 2020 and 2023, including bank statements, retainer agreements, and detailed records of client funds. However, Wright repeatedly fell short of compliance.
Despite several extensions granted by the committee, Wright did not fulfill the requests. He claimed that the demands of his law practice and personal circumstances, including his mother’s illness, contributed to his inability to respond adequately. On various occasions, he provided only partial responses or incomplete records that did not satisfy the committee’s queries.
The committee emphasized that Wright’s lack of cooperation was detrimental to their investigation, arguing that it warranted immediate suspension under New York regulations. The court supported this view, noting that while some of Wright’s bookkeeping records had been submitted, the failure to provide complete and corroborative documentation raised serious concerns about his professional conduct.
In addition to the issues surrounding the dishonored check, Wright was found to have overpaid himself in multiple client cases, including a reported $296,000 fee from a $675,000 recovery in the G.B. case. In the same matter, he admitted to having made accounting mistakes that affected client disbursements. Wright’s actions have been characterized as nonvenal misappropriation, suggesting that while he may not have intended to commit fraud, his practices demonstrated a significant lack of professionalism.
Wright defended his actions by asserting that he primarily represents indigent clients and often provides them with financial assistance. He presented affidavits from clients attesting to his support and the assistance he offered during challenging times. Nonetheless, the court found that such claims did not mitigate the seriousness of his failure to comply with the committee’s requests.
According to the order, Wright has the option to request a post-suspension hearing within 20 days of the ruling.
The Disposition states:
“Wherefore, it is Ordered that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department for immediate suspension, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3), is granted, and respondent, Richard John Wright, is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.”
According to avvo.com, Mr. Wright is a family attorney in New York, New York. He acquired his law license in New York in 2002.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
