Matter of Galloway
2026 NY Slip Op 04853
August 5, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Per Curiam
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
In the Matter of Aubrey Galloway III, admitted as Aubrey Claudius Galloway, a suspended attorney. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Aubrey Galloway III, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4888459)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on August 5, 2026
2023-07242
Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Mark C. Dillon
Colleen D. Duffy
Francesca E. Connolly
Paul Wooten, JJ.
Courtny Osterling, White Plains, NY, for petitioner.
Richard E. Grayson, White Plains, NY, for respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on February 23, 2011, under the name Aubrey Claudius Galloway. In a separate proceeding, under Appellate Division Docket No. 2020-02446, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing September 27, 2024 (see Matter of Galloway, 232 AD3d 70).
Per Curiam.
[*1]
Per Curiam.
OPINION & ORDER
The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District commenced a formal disciplinary proceeding against the respondent by serving and filing a notice of petition dated August 3, 2023, and a verified petition dated July 31, 2023. The respondent served and filed a verified answer dated September 20, 2023, admitting most of the factual allegations but denying any violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. By decision and order on application dated December 21, 2023, this Court referred the matter to Norma Giffords, as Special Referee, to hear and report. A prehearing conference was conducted on March 11, 2024, and a hearing was conducted on July 12, 2024. In a report dated October 31, 2024, the Special Referee sustained all seven charges in the petition. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as this Court deems just and proper. The respondent submits an affirmation in response, in which he requests that this Court disaffirm the findings of the Special Referee and dismiss all charges in the petition or, in the alternative, impose a censure or a suspension terminating on June 27, 2025.
The Petition
Charge one alleges that the respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, in violation of rule 1.3(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). On or about May 7, 2018, the respondent agreed to represent Antoinette Wynn in a damages action against her former tenant for unpaid rent and property damage to the premises and to enforce an existing judgment that Wynn had previously obtained against the former tenant. Wynn paid the respondent the sum of $1,000 as an advance retainer fee for bringing the prospective [*2]action and the sum of $498 as a flat fee for enforcing the existing judgment. Notwithstanding, the respondent failed to take necessary steps to commence the action or to enforce the existing judgment. Charge two alleges that the respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of rule 1.3(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, on the basis of the factual specifications alleged in charge one.
Charge three alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, in violation of rule 8.4(c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In addition to the factual allegations of charge one, the respondent advised Wynn in a May 14, 2018 email that he was waiting for an index number to be assigned for the action against the former tenant and that once it was received, he would send a process server to serve the former tenant. By subsequent email also dated May 14, 2018, the respondent advised Wynn that he was in the process of attempting to serve the former tenant and that upon doing so, he would file an affidavit of service with the clerk's office. On May 17, 2018, the respondent advised Wynn by email that he would let Wynn know when the former tenant was served, and the affidavit of service was filed. In a May 23, 2018 email in response to a request by Wynn for a status update, the respondent advised Wynn that the respondent's paralegal would be attempting to serve the former tenant personally and that if the attempt at personal service was unsuccessful, he would initiate substituted service.
The respondent made the May 14, 2018, May 17, 2018, and May 23, 2018 representations to Wynn even though he had neither filed papers to commence the lawsuit nor purchased an index number. Likewise, in his May 23, 2018 email, the respondent advised Wynn that he would take steps to enforce the judgment the following day, as he had "three transcripts of judgment to enforce at the White Plains Marshall's office." At the time, the respondent had no other transcripts of judgment for which to seek enforcement.
Charge four alleges that the respondent failed to promptly comply with a client's reasonable requests for information, in violation of rule 1.4(a)(4) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent to May 2018, Wynn made multiple inquiries to the respondent as to the status of her matters. The respondent failed to respond to Wynn's inquiries.
Charge five alleges that the respondent, upon termination of representation, failed to take steps to avoid foreseeable prejudice to the rights of a client, in violation of rule 1.16(e) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent to May 2018, the respondent discontinued his legal services to Wynn without providing reasonable notice that he was doing so. He failed to deliver all papers and property to which Wynn was entitled and failed to refund any part of the fees that Wynn paid in advance that had not been earned.
Charge six alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to timely and/or fully cooperate in a disciplinary investigation conducted by the Grievance Committee, in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. By letter dated July 12, 2022, sent via email, the Grievance Committee advised the respondent that it had commenced an investigation into his professional conduct based on a complaint filed by Wynn. The July 12, 2022 letter requested that the respondent provide a copy of the Wynn client file, along with certain additional information, within 10 days of receipt. The letter further advised that the unexcused failure to timely respond or otherwise properly cooperate with the Grievance Committee would constitute professional misconduct independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. The respondent failed to provide the Grievance Committee either the Wynn client file or the requested information. By letter dated August 3, 2022, sent via email, the Grievance Committee again requested that the respondent provide a copy of the Wynn client file, along with the additional information within 10 days of receipt.
On or about August 12, 2022, the Grievance Committee was notified by counsel that he had been retained to represent the respondent with regard to the Grievance Committee's investigation of the Wynn complaint. By letter dated August 19, 2022, sent to the respondent's counsel by email, the Grievance Committee again requested that the respondent submit the Wynn client file and the additional information and requested further that the respondent provide an explanation for his initial failure to respond to the Grievance Committee's July 12, 2022 letter. The letter again advised that the unexcused failure to timely respond or otherwise properly cooperate with the Grievance Committee would constitute professional misconduct independent of the merits of the underlying complaint. The respondent failed to submit his response within 10 days of the Grievance Committee's August 19, 2022 letter.
The respondent responded on September 9, 2022. In his submission, the respondent [*3]neither provided an explanation for his initial failure to respond to the Grievance Committee's July 12, 2022 letter nor provided the Wynn client file. In a September 9, 2022 email, the Grievance Committee notified the respondent's counsel of the omissions from the respondent's submission and requested that the respondent provide an explanation for his delay in responding and a copy of the Wynn client file by September 15, 2022. The respondent failed to make any further submission in response to that request.
On November 21, 2022, the Grievance Committee served the respondent with a so-ordered judicial subpoena and a so-ordered judicial subpoena duces tecum, each returnable at the Grievance Committee's office on December 14, 2022. The judicial subpoena duces tecum directed the respondent to provide the Wynn client file. Following an adjournment of the return date, the respondent appeared at the Grievance Committee's office on December 20, 2022, and testified under oath. The respondent, however, failed to provide the Wynn client file. At the conclusion of the examination, the respondent was requested to provide the Grievance Committee with additional information and records by January 9, 2023, including, but not limited to, copies of the checks by which he had received payment of his legal fees. The respondent failed to submit any of the requested records and information by January 9, 2023, or thereafter.
Charge seven alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, based on the factual specifications alleged in charges one through six.
The Hearing and Hearing Record
The Grievance Committee called Wynn as its only witness and entered six exhibits into evidence to prove its case-in-chief. The respondent entered two exhibits into evidence and testified on his own behalf. Wynn testified that she engaged the respondent to enforce an existing judgment for $4,890 against her former tenant, Sandra Sanchez (hereinafter the Judgment Enforcement), and to commence a lawsuit against Sanchez for unpaid rent and property damage to the premises (hereinafter the Damages Action). The respondent set forth the terms of the fee agreement for both matters in a May 6, 2018 email and an attached document styled "Initial Retainer Invoice w/ Expenses." Under the terms set forth in the respondent's email, Wynn was to pay a $498 flat fee for the Judgment Enforcement, and with respect to the Damages Action, Wynn was to pay $1,000 as a retainer fee, $210 for filing and index number fees, and $95 for a request for judicial intervention fee, which funds were due on May 7, 2018.
With respect to the Judgment Enforcement, Wynn sent the respondent the required $498 check via FedEx, which he deposited. With respect to the Damages Action, Wynn provided the respondent with 38 photographs documenting property damage and sent him the $1,000 retainer fee "to have him start the case."
Wynn was unable to reach the respondent by phone but initiated a number of email exchanges with the respondent. The respondent's replies led Wynn to believe that both the Damages Action and the Judgment Enforcement were proceeding apace. In a May 23, 2018 email, the respondent wrote:
"[m]y paralegal is headed down to avenue of the Americas to try to serve [Sanchez] personally. If she gets here I will let you know . . . If not I will send her back tomorrow and then if she cannot serve her by then we will initiate substituted service . . . Suffice it to say, I will keep you apprised of all developments. I'm going to get your judgment enforced tomorrow as I have three transcripts of judgment to enforce at the White Plains Marshall's office."
On May 29, 2018, in response to an email from Wynn asking if the income execution had taken place, the respondent replied, "No. It will be executed this week. There are several steps. Suffice it to say I will keep you apprised of all developments." At no point did the respondent ask Wynn for additional records or information or ask that Wynn pay additional fees.
Despite subsequent attempts to contact the respondent by phone and email, Wynn was unable to reach the respondent. On April 8, 2019, Wynn again attempted to reach the respondent by email. In the absence of a response, Wynn emailed the respondent on April 11, 2019, and wrote "[p]lease provide a copy of the executed document with the index so that I can trace with the court." When the respondent failed to respond to Wynn's April 11, 2019 email, she filed a complaint with the Grievance Committee.
According to the respondent, he "worked up the [damages] case" by reviewing documents, communicating with Wynn and her sister, and drafting a summons and notice, which had [*4]to be revised to correct the venue. However, he did not commence the action because Wynn had not fully paid the filing fees. With respect to the Judgment Enforcement, the respondent likewise blamed Wynn for his failure to take any meaningful action in the matter, testifying that she had failed to provide sufficient information for him to enforce the judgment, although he was not sure if he had asked Wynn for the information.
The respondent testified that in May or June of 2018, his relationship with Wynn deteriorated and he decided to discontinue representing her. He did not send Wynn anything in writing reflecting this decision, however, and acknowledged that he should have.
With respect to charge six, the respondent initially stated that he did not recall receiving the July 12, 2022 and August 3, 2022 letters from the Grievance Committee but then explained that he failed to produce the Wynn client file to the Grievance Committee for approximately 20 months because he was unable to locate it.
In mitigation, the respondent testified that, while sober since July 7, 2019, he had experienced alcohol problems since high school, drinking as much as a liter of vodka and 12 to18 beers per day in or about 2017 to 2018. The respondent acknowledged that when drinking heavily, he "wasn't on top of [his] game" and that it affected his law practice negatively but conceded that he had not raised his drinking problem as an issue prior to the hearing. The respondent also described having COVID-19 in the spring of 2020 and summer of 2022, which he said resulted, inter alia, in brain fog and ongoing sickness.
The Special Referee's Report
In her report, the Special Referee sustained all seven charges in the petition. The Special Referee noted that "all [Wynn's] allegations concerning respondent's 'failures' to represent her were backed up by documentary evidence, largely consisting of emails and cancelled checks," while "[the respondent's] excuse for not performing the legal work Wynn hired him to perform was a loose claim that the retainer would not cover all the work he would have to perform." The Special Referee found Wynn "to be highly organized, well-spoken, intelligent, appropriately responsive to all questions, and completely credible." By contrast, the Special Referee found the respondent "confused, disorganized, unable to recall dates and events." The Special Referee concluded that the respondent "was unfit to function as an attorney as he was unable to concentrate or pay proper attention to the charges brought against him by the grievance committee."
The Special Referee noted that the respondent had not raised his alcoholism as a defense prior to the date of the hearing and that although she offered the respondent the opportunity for his treating psychiatrist to provide medical evidence, he had elected not to do so. The Special Referee also observed that certain of the respondent's failures to locate documents and open legal mail significantly postdated his sobriety. The Special Referee found no applicable mitigating factors.
The Grievance Committee moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and to impose such discipline as this Court deems just and proper. The Grievance Committee reports that the respondent has a disciplinary history consisting of a one-year suspension for, among other things, failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation, four Admonitions, and one Letter of Advisement. Although three of the Admonitions and the Letter of Advisement were issued on or about October 15, 2018, they involve four separate client complaints contemplating similar misconduct, resulting in the respondent's being admonished and advised for, inter alia, his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in those investigations.
The respondent requests that this Court disaffirm the findings of the Special Referee and dismiss all charges in the petition because the Grievance Committee failed to prove the seven charges by a preponderance of the evidence or, in the alternative, impose a censure or a suspension terminating on June 27, 2025. Findings and Conclusion
In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained all seven charges in the petition. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted.
In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we consider that the Special Referee found no applicable mitigating factors. In addition, we consider the respondent's pattern of failing to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigations and his failure to take meaningful responsibility for his misconduct to be significant aggravating factors. Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that a three-year suspension is warranted. LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, CONNOLLY, and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's
report is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Aubrey Galloway III, admitted as Aubrey Claudius
Galloway, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, effective immediately, and continuing until further order of this Court. The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than February 5, 2029. In such application (see 22 NYCRR 1240.16), the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof that during the period of suspension, he (1) refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) fully complied with this opinion and order and with the terms and provisions of the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15), (3) complied with the applicable continuing legal education requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.11(a), and (4) otherwise properly conducted himself; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Aubrey Galloway III, admitted as Aubrey Claudius
Galloway, shall continue to comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15); and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the respondent, Aubrey Galloway, III, admitted as Aubrey Claudius Galloway, shall continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that if the respondent, Aubrey Galloway III, admitted as Aubrey Claudius Galloway, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court