Pamela S. Roth, an attorney admitted to practice in New York since June 26, 1991, is facing disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) for the First Judicial Department. The AGC filed a notice and petition detailing 35 charges of professional misconduct related to her representation of seven clients. Roth and the AGC have jointly requested a two-year suspension and her successful completion of the New York City Bar Association's Lawyer Assistance Program, supported by a joint affirmation that includes conditional admissions of misconduct, mitigating factors, and the proposed discipline.
Specific allegations against Roth include failing to communicate and provide a retainer agreement to client DT, which led to a delay in filing a personal injury lawsuit. Her failure to serve a necessary complaint in a timely manner constituted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically rules regarding communication (1.4[a][4]) and diligence (1.3[a] and [b]). Additionally, Roth issued a dishonored check for $210 to the Kings County Clerk's Office for client WR, failed to replace it promptly despite assurances, and neglected to serve the corresponding summons with notice, again violating the diligence and neglect rules. Roth has acknowledged the stipulated facts and consequences of her consent to the disciplinary action.
Client ED retained the respondent in 2016 for three personal injury cases. The respondent initiated two actions in state court but did not timely serve the summonses or respond to a demand for a complaint. Although she claimed to have filed a third case in federal court, she did not actually file it and informed ED only in 2019 that she believed she could not prove the case. This conduct violated rules 1.3(a) and 1.3(b) for lack of diligence and neglect, respectively, and rules 1.4(a)(3) and 8.4(c) for misrepresentation.
Client AC retained the respondent in December 2016, but she delayed filing a summons until 2019 after being contacted by the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) regarding AC's complaint. This two-and-a-half-year delay constituted neglect under rule 1.3(b).
Client RD retained the respondent in May 2016, and while she filed a summons in August 2017, she failed to respond to RD's requests for information and did not inform him of her address change. No action was taken on RD's case until March 2021, violating rules 1.4(a)(3) and 1.4(a)(4) for failing to keep the client informed and neglecting the matter under rule 1.3(b).
Client JC retained the respondent in April 2014 for a personal injury lawsuit, which was dismissed with prejudice due to the respondent's failure to submit opposition papers or appear in court after several adjournments. She later filed a motion to renew that was marked off the calendar, and despite being granted extensions, she did not comply, leading to a ruling for costs against her. In December 2019, she failed to respond to the defendant's opposition to her motion to restore JC's case. This pattern of neglect and lack of diligence also violated rules 1.3(a) and 1.3(b).
Client KJ retained the respondent in November 2017 for a Section 1983 wrongful arrest action, but details regarding this matter were not provided in the excerpt.
In April 2018, a lawsuit was filed on behalf of KJ in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, but it was closed shortly after due to the respondent's failure to file a complaint. A request to reopen the case was made in September 2018, but the clerk identified deficiencies, and the respondent did not rectify them. In March 2019, the court ordered the respondent to show cause for why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, warning that failure to respond would lead to dismissal. The respondent did not reply, resulting in a dismissal on March 28, 2019. The respondent then requested reinstatement of the case, asserting her intent to comply with court orders, but this was denied.
In April 2019, the respondent filed a second action for the same matter, which was dismissed without prejudice in October 2019 for failing to prove service of the summons and complaint. A third action was filed in November 2019, but the respondent failed to meet service requirements outlined in the court's section 1983 case plan. In July 2020, the defendant sought a pre-motion to dismiss conference, to which the respondent did not respond, violating court rules. The court ordered the respondent to show cause for her noncompliance and warned her about potential sanctions.
After initially asserting her intent to adhere to court orders, the respondent failed to amend the complaint by the promised deadline. A hearing was scheduled for November 2020 regarding her noncompliance, and she informed her client only on the day of the hearing. The court mandated an amended complaint by November 20, 2020, which was eventually filed. Throughout this period, the respondent was found to have violated several ethical rules, including failing to act with diligence, neglecting the case, and not keeping her client informed. Her repeated disregard for court orders and assurances of compliance constituted conduct prejudicial to justice and reflected poorly on her fitness as a lawyer.
The respondent has a history of disciplinary actions, including four prior admonitions from the Second Department between 2010 and 2016 for similar conduct. Specific instances include: in 2010, failure to provide a written retainer agreement and misleading the Second Department; in 2013 and 2014, neglect and lack of communication with a bankruptcy trustee; and in 2016, neglect and poor communication regarding a personal injury matter. Additionally, in 2003 and 2006, the respondent received an Advisement and a Letter of Caution, respectively, for communication failures and neglecting a legal matter.
In mitigation, the respondent faced significant personal challenges from 2005 to 2020, including a divorce, relocating her practice, and being the primary caregiver for her mother, who had severe health issues before her death in September 2020. In December 2021, the respondent entered a Mental Health Monitoring Agreement, which requires her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and comply with treatment protocols.
The parties recommend a two-year suspension, citing the respondent's "long-term pattern of neglect" affecting seven client matters and misrepresentation to clients. This recommendation aligns with precedents where attorneys exhibiting similar patterns of neglect and misrepresentation received suspensions ranging from two to four years.
The parties have recognized that longer suspensions of three to four years have been imposed for similar misconduct, citing cases involving neglect of multiple client matters and dishonesty to clients. Despite these precedents, the respondent, Pamela S. Roth, has accepted responsibility for her actions, cooperated with the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC), and both parties have jointly requested a disciplinary action by consent. While Roth's neglect over a decade is concerning, it coincided with significant personal challenges, and she has taken steps to improve her mental health through the Lawyer's Assistance Program (LAP). Consequently, the court grants the joint motion for discipline by consent, imposing a two-year suspension from the practice of law effective July 29, 2022, during which Roth must complete LAP. She is also prohibited from practicing law, appearing in court, giving legal opinions or advice, and holding herself out as an attorney during the suspension period. Roth must comply with regulations for suspended attorneys and return any secure pass issued by the Office of Court Administration. The petition of charges is deemed moot. The decision was entered on June 28, 2022.
