Matter of Uzamere
2026 NY Slip Op 04511
July 22, 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 Osato Eugene Uzamere, an attorney and counsel-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Osato Eugene Uzamere, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2766764.)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on July 22, 2026
2024-00795
Hector D. Lasalle, P.J.
Mark C. Dillon
Colleen D. Duffy
Betsy Barros
James P. McCormack, JJ.
David W. Chandler, Brooklyn, NY, for petitioner.
Forrest Strauss, Monroe, NY, for respondent.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on September 25, 1996.
Per Curiam.
[*1]
Per Curiam.
OPINION & ORDER
The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh,
and Thirteenth Judicial Districts commenced a formal disciplinary proceeding pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8 against the respondent by serving and filing a notice of petition and a verified petition, both dated January 23, 2024. The respondent filed a verified answer dated February 14, 2024, in which he admitted the factual allegations but denied the legal conclusion that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The respondent asserted two affirmative defenses. First, the respondent asserted that "[a]ny ongoing sexual relationship respondent may have had with [JS] after February 12, 2018 became a permissible, consensual, pre-existing relationship and was still so on July 10, 2018, when he was again assigned to represent [JS] in Family Court." Second, the respondent asserted that at all times during the course of his representation of JS, he successfully provided "timely, diligent, and competent representation."
The Grievance Committee served and filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts dated February 28, 2024. The respondent, through counsel, served and filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts dated March 13, 2024. By decision and order on application dated April 4, 2024, the Court, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8(b)(1), referred the matter to David I. Ferber, as Special Referee, to hear and report. In a report dated October 15, 2024, the Special Referee sustained the sole charge in the petition. By notice of motion dated October 29, 2024, the Grievance Committee moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. By notice of cross-motion dated November 18, 2024, the respondent moves to confirm so much of the Special Referee's report as found that the respondent violated rules 1.8(j)(1)(iii) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) between August 2016 and February 12, 2018, and to disaffirm so much of the Special [*2]Referee's report as found that the respondent engaged in any other disciplinary violation. The respondent requests the imposition of a public censure.
The Petition
The petition alleges one charge of professional misconduct concerning the respondent's improper relationship with a client during the course of his representation of that client in domestic relations matters.
In or about 2010, the respondent was appointed to the Queens County Family Court Assigned Counsel Panel, administered by the Attorneys for Children Program. On or about September 8, 2015, the respondent was appointed to represent JS, a mother, in a child custody/parental access matter and a child support petition. In or about 2016, the respondent entered into sexual relations with JS.
On or about February 12, 2018, Court Attorney Referee Craig Ramseur, Queens County Family Court, awarded full custody of the child to the father, JS's former husband. On that date, the respondent's assignment to represent JS ended. However, the respondent's sexual relationship with JS continued after this date.
On or about July 10, 2018, the respondent was again assigned by the Queens County Family Court to represent JS in a newly filed custody matter and a family offense matter. In or about December 2020, the respondent ended his sexual relationship with JS. The respondent continued to represent JS until March 7, 2023, when the respondent asked the Queens County Family Court to be relieved of his assignment to represent JS in any and all pending matters before the court.
Based on the above, charge one alleges three separate violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct: the respondent improperly entered into and maintained sexual relations with a client during the course of his representation of that client in domestic relations matters, in violation of rule 1.8(j)(1)(iii) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; the respondent engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct; and 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 .
The Hearing Record
On December 5, 2023, the respondent appeared for an examination under oath (hereinafter EUO). On June 10, 2024, a hearing was conducted. The Grievance Committee entered one exhibit into evidence, the transcript of the respondent's EUO, to prove its case-in-chief. The respondent entered seven exhibits into evidence, which included six character letters and the respondent's answer, through counsel, to the Grievance Committee's investigation, dated October 9, 2023. The respondent testified on his own behalf and called one character witness.
The respondent testified that he was assigned to represent JS in a custody matter on September 8, 2015, as the intake attorney assigned to the Part on that day for the Assigned Counsel Panel. He was also appointed to represent JS in connection with a custody modification application. During the representation, JS was involved in a February 2017 investigation by the Administration for Children's Services, which resulted in an indicated finding and, ultimately, JS's former husband being awarded sole custody of the child by a final order of custody dated February 8, 2018. The respondent testified that JS pleaded with him to help challenge the indicated finding. The respondent represented JS in a fair hearing at which the indicated finding was reversed. However, the fair hearing decision came out on February 12, 2018, four days after the final custody award was made. During the respondent's EUO, he testified that his representation of JS at the fair hearing was not part of his representation pursuant to the Assigned Counsel Panel but was done without a retainer or requesting legal fees. The respondent's first period of representation of JS ended on February 12, 2018.
The respondent testified that he began a sexual relationship with JS in August 2016 and that the relationship was consensual. He did not demand sexual favors from JS as a condition for continuing his representation and did not employ any coercion, intimidation, or undue influence in order to obtain sexual favors from JS during his representation of her.
On May 10, 2018, the respondent was reassigned to represent JS again in connection with a family offense petition. At the time he was reassigned to represent JS, he did not disclose his personal sexual relationship with JS to the judge or referee, nor did he give his sexual relationship with JS any consideration when deciding to take the reassignment. The respondent's second period of representation ended on October 11, 2018.
The respondent testified that he began a third period of representation of JS in March [*3]2019, after JS pleaded with him to help her regain custody of her child. The respondent filed a custody enforcement petition on JS's behalf. The respondent testified that his representation of JS ended on March 7, 2023, after he received notice from the attorney representing JS's child in a then ongoing custody hearing that the attorney had received evidence in the form of text messages of the respondent's sexual relationship with JS. The respondent testified at his EUO that once he saw the text messages, he decided he had "to get off the case. There is no way [he was] going to continue [JS's] representation if [he] ha[d] to deal with this." The respondent did not tell JS the reason why he could no longer represent her, just that he had to get off the case. The same day, the respondent asked a colleague to take over representation of JS. The respondent testified at his EUO that he informed the court on the record that there was "a conflict" between him and his client and asked to be removed as counsel, at which time his colleague agreed on the record to take the case.
The respondent testified that he was unaware of the rules that prohibited engaging in sexual relations with clients, especially clients in domestic relations matters. The respondent testified that he was "aware that it was inappropriate, however [he] was not aware of the prohibition. [He] believe[d] at least when [he] subsequently represented [JS], because that period had ended, and the relationship had continued, that it was fine, . . . [he] did not think that is was a prohibition at that point."
The respondent testified that he was removed from the Assigned Counsel Panel in June 2023 "as a result of this matter" and that 90% of his practice was Assigned Counsel Panel cases. The respondent testified that he submitted Assigned Counsel Panel vouchers for legal fees in connection with his first period of representation of JS, from September 8, 2015, to February 12, 2018, but did not submit vouchers for his representation of JS for his work from May 2018 to March 2023. The respondent estimated that he could have submitted in excess of $20,000 in vouchers for legal fees, as he had made more than 50 court appearances on JS's behalf.
The Special Referee's Report
The Special Referee sustained the sole charge in the petition and noted that the respondent admitted to entering into a sexual relationship with a client during the course of his representation of the client. The Special Referee found that "[w]hile the respondent knew that what he was doing was wrong, he did not review the Rules in order to govern his actions. Respondent's credibility was in [the Special Referee's] view, questionable." The Special Referee rejected the respondent's affirmative defense that the termination of his first period of representation made the continuing relationship acceptable during the second and third periods of representation.
The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. The respondent cross-moves to confirm so much of the Special Referee's report as found that the respondent violated rules 1.8(j)(1)(iii) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct between August 2016 and February 12, 2018, and to disaffirm so much of the Special Referee's report as found that the respondent engaged in any other disciplinary violation. The respondent requests the imposition of a public censure.
Findings and Conclusion
In view of the respondent's admissions and the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained the sole charge in the petition. The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted. Inasmuch as the respondent asserts that his relationship with JS was acceptable after his first period of representation ended on February 12, 2018, and somehow negated the continuing misconduct, we agree with the Special Referee and find no merit to that argument. Accordingly, that branch of the respondent's cross-motion which is to confirm so much of the Special Referee's report as found that the respondent violated rules 1.8(j)(1)(iii) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct between August 2016 and February 12, 2018, is granted. That branch of the respondent's cross-motion which is to disaffirm so much of the Special Referee's report as found that the respondent engaged in any other disciplinary violation is denied. We find that the Special Referee's report should be confirmed in its entirety.
In determining the appropriate measure of discipline, the respondent requests the Court to consider in mitigation that the sexual relationship was consensual, that he is genuinely remorseful, that some of his representation of JS was done without collecting a fee, that he cooperated with the Grievance Committee's investigation, and that he accepted responsibility for his actions. Additionally, the respondent had a previously unblemished disciplinary history. [*4]Notwithstanding the aforementioned mitigating factors and the positive character evidence submitted, we find that the respondent violated the ethical rules in "contravention of this State's strong public policy against sexual relations between an attorney and his or her domestic relations client" (Matter of Hersh, 184 AD3d 310, 313). We have also considered, in aggravation, that the respondent knew that his conduct was inappropriate but continued his relationship with JS for more than four years while serving as her attorney during three distinct periods of representation without ever notifying the court of his conflict of interest or declining the representation.
Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that the respondent's conduct warrants a suspension from the practice of law for a period of 18 months (see id.).
LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and MCCORMACK, 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 branch of the respondent's cross-motion which is to confirm so much of the Special Referee's report as found that the respondent violated rules 1.8(j)(1)(iii) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct between August 2016 and February 12, 2018, is granted, and the branch of the respondent's cross-motion which is to disaffirm so much of the Special Referee's report as found that the respondent engaged in any other disciplinary violation is denied; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Osato Eugene Uzamere, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of 18 months, commencing August 21, 2026, and continuing until further order of this Court. The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than August 21, 2027. 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, Osato Eugene Uzamere, shall 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, Osato Eugene Uzamere, shall 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, Osato Eugene Uzamere, 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).
LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court