Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 23, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court
Benedict F. Romano, admitted to practice law in New York since March 1968, faced multiple allegations of professional misconduct stemming from inappropriate behavior with clients. In September 1994, a former client, referred to as B, accused Romano of directing her to disrobe in his office while he touched her inappropriately. Following these allegations, a Hearing Panel recommended a two-year suspension. However, shortly after this recommendation, a new complaint arose concerning another client, Y, who alleged that Romano improperly touched her and took photographs while she was undressed, despite his prior sworn statements that he would no longer examine female clients. The Disciplinary Committee moved for an immediate suspension, which was granted by the Court on July 17, 1997.
Further hearings revealed additional misconduct, including touching Y's thigh and taking photographs of her in various states of undress. The Hearing Panel found that Romano's actions constituted a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. In comparison, similar cases illustrate a pattern of disciplinary action against attorneys for engaging in similar inappropriate conduct, with sanctions including suspension for varying durations.
Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving improper physical examinations of at least three female clients in his office. The Panel's report highlights the repetitive and alarming nature of this behavior, indicating respondent's inability to control his actions. Notably, unlike in the case of Rudnick, there was no personal relationship between respondent and the clients. Despite having previously been found guilty by a Committee Hearing Panel, which recommended sanctions, respondent continued his improper conduct. The Hearing Panel determined that his actions were "so beyond the norm and so apparently uncontrollable" that disbarment was warranted. They also recommended that any potential readmission to the Bar be contingent upon psychological evidence of his fitness to practice law. Consequently, respondent's cross motion to disaffirm the Panel's report is denied, while the petitioner's motion to confirm the recommendation for disbarment is granted. Respondent's name is to be removed from the roster of attorneys, effective immediately. All justices concurred with this decision.
