Matter of King
This text of Matter of King (Matter of King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
Matter of King
2026 NY Slip Op 02604
April 28, 2026
Appellate Division, First 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 William John Lloyd King, an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, William John Lloyd King (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 5103908), Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
Decided and Entered: April 28, 2026
Motion No. 2025-05965|Case No. 2025-07038|
Present — Hon. Dianne T. Renwick, Presiding Justice, Barbara R. Kapnick, Lizbeth González, Llinét M. Rosado, Kelly O'Neill Levy
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York City (Diana Neyman, of counsel), for petitioner.
Hal R. Lieberman, Esq., for respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, William John Lloyd King, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on January 14, 2013.
Per Curiam [*1]Respondent William John Lloyd King was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on January 14, 2013. He maintains a registered address in the First Judicial Department.
The Attorney Grievance Committee (the AGC) moves for an order, pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(5), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court based on documentary evidence, namely bank records and respondent's written admission, that he knowingly converted and/or misappropriated $17,420 in his client, D.J.'s, funds to satisfy a long-standing gambling addiction. The AGC asserts that respondent dissipated D.J.'s funds while misleading her into believing the funds were still forthcoming and continued to deceive her even after the AGC began to investigate. It further argues that respondent failed to comply with the rules requiring him to maintain escrow funds in an IOLA, attorney trust account, or attorney escrow account.
Respondent opposes an interim suspension and, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.11, requests that he be referred to a diversion monitoring program. Safeguards would be in place through which escrow account withdrawals would require an additional lawyer's signature, and his monitor would submit periodic progress reports to the AGC. His counsel argues that this was a one-off misappropriation, restitution was made, and respondent has unqualifiedly acknowledged his wrongdoing and fully cooperated with the AGC's investigation. Counsel further argues that if the Court determines that imposition of a temporary suspension is necessary, that it be limited to a disability suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.14(b).
Respondent submitted an affidavit detailing his educational background and legal employment history. He describes how he began gambling recreationally in or about 2006 which years later grew into compulsive behavior. While he sought support in 2023, his efforts were brief. Respondent states that in late August 2025, when he received D.J.'s complaint, he took steps toward recovery which included making restitution to D.J., joining the Lawyer Assistance Program (LAP), and starting treatment. As of December 31, 2025, respondent had abstained from gambling for several months. Letters from a service provider and a LAP counselor indicate that respondent is demonstrating meaningful progress.
The AGC maintains that respondent is not a suitable candidate for diversion because his alleged misconduct is too serious (Matter of Kalonzo, __ AD3d __, 2025 NY Slip Op 06256 [1st Dept 2025] [diversion denied and interim suspension imposed where record evidenced conversion and/or misappropriation of escrow funds]; Matter of Pierre, 153 AD3d 306 [1st Dept 2017] [diversion denied and interim suspension imposed where record evidenced, inter alia, conversion and/or misappropriation of client funds]).
[*2]The AGC maintains that respondent's arguments that his conversion and/or misappropriation of D.J.'s funds was a "one off" incident and that he made financial restitution to his client constitute mitigation more appropriately presented in later proceeding involving formal charges, not as a defense to an interim suspension (Matter of Messian, 155 AD3d 57 [1st Dept 2017] [request for disability suspension based on narcotics addiction rejected and interim suspension imposed based on admissions to conversion of client and third party funds]; Matter of Afilalo, 139 AD3d 175 [1st Dept 2016] [interim suspension based on evidence of misappropriation and/or conversion of client funds; personal and family health problems rejected as a defense with the Court opining that such were not relevant to an interim suspension motion, and respondent would have opportunity to present this evidence as mitigation at a later proceeding based on formal charges]). The AGC also argues, among other things, that relevant case law makes clear that a single instance of conversion/misappropriation of client funds is sufficient to support an interim suspension; and respondent has not provided any medical evidence that he is incapacitated from practicing law to support his alternate request for a disability suspension (see 22 NYCRR 1240.14[b]). The AGC further urges that respondent's claim that his theft of client funds was a "one off' misappropriation demonstrates a lack of genuine remorse bolstering its claim that respondent poses an undue threat to the public.
The AGC further asserts that respondent's recovery efforts are of too short a duration to ameliorate the seriousness of his misconduct and began as a direct result of the AGC's investigation. It notes that respondent has had a gambling addiction for almost 20 years and presents an immediate and lasting threat to the public interest.
Respondent argues, among other things, that his gambling did not become compulsive until 2023. He asserts that contrary to the AGC's position, Messian and Afilalo, both of which address mitigation evidence, do not belie respondent's request for diversion or, alternatively, a disability suspension. In addition, he maintains that the AGC overlooks case law from other Departments that supports his diversion request, namely Matter of Anonymous (148 AD3d 110 [4th Dept 2017]) [dismissing petition of charges after attorney's diversion request was granted, which stayed the disciplinary proceeding, and attorney then successfully completed a monitoring program for alcohol abuse] and Matter of Anonymous (37 AD3d 970 [3d Dept 2007]) [granting diversion request based on alcohol and substance abuse and staying motion to suspend based on alleged failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation]. However, neither decision indicates that the attorneys were charged with conversion and/or misappropriation of client funds.
[*3]Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI