Matter of Campbell

Matter of Campbell 2026 NY Slip Op 05527 September 30, 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 Judy T. Campbell, admitted as Judy Tycia Campbell, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner; Judy T. Campbell, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4023891) Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department Decided on September 30, 2026 2023-04837 Hector D. Lasalle, P.J. Mark C. Dillon Colleen D. Duffy Betsy Barros Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, JJ. Catherine A. Sheridan, Hauppauge, NY (Ian P. Barry of counsel), for petitioner. Foley Griffin LLP, Garden City, NY (Kelly Guthy of counsel), for respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth 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 May 22, 2002, under the name Judy Tycia Campbell. Per Curiam. [*1] Per Curiam. OPINION & ORDER The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District 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 May 12, 2023, containing two charges of professional misconduct. The respondent served and filed a verified answer dated June 27, 2023, responding only to the first charge. By amended answer dated July 5, 2023, the respondent responded to both charges. By further amended answer dated November 7, 2024, the respondent ultimately admitted all but one of the factual specifications of the petition and denied the conclusions of law. By decision and order on application dated December 21, 2023, this Court referred the matter to the Honorable David B. Vaughan, as Special Referee, to hear and report. A pre-hearing conference was held on April 10, 2024, at which the respondent was not present, and a hearing was conducted on November 12, 2024. In a report dated March 31, 2025, the Special Referee sustained both 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 the Court deems just and proper. The respondent submits an affirmation which does not oppose the Grievance Committee's motion, nor challenge the Special Referee's report, but submits that public censure is the appropriate sanction. In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained all of the charges in the petition and that a six-month suspension is warranted. The Petition Both of the charges of professional misconduct in the verified petition are based on the respondent's failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee's investigation of a single client [*2]complaint against the respondent. Charge one alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). The Grievance Committee received a complaint from Lurline I. Gore (hereinafter the Gore complaint), dated March 1, 2022, which alleged, inter alia, that the respondent failed to deliver the full proceeds of the sale of Gore's home, as well as certain documents related to the sale, and failed to communicate with Gore about the alleged missing funds. By letter dated April 11, 2022, sent to the email address that the respondent registered with the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA), the Grievance Committee notified the respondent of its investigation and requested her written answer to the complaint within 10 days. When the Grievance Committee received no answer nor a request for additional time in which to answer, it sent a second letter dated June 28, 2022, to the same email address, as well as by certified mail, return receipt requested (hereinafter CMRRR) and first-class mail to the respondent's OCA-registered business address, again asking for a written answer to the complaint within 10 days. By email dated June 29, 2022, the respondent informed the Grievance Committee that she was out of the country and requested an extension of time to answer the complaint. The Grievance Committee replied on the same day, stating that before it could grant an extension, it requested that the respondent provide her expected return date and the amount of additional time requested. The respondent did not provide this information, nor did she submit an answer to the Gore complaint. The Grievance Committee sent a third letter to the respondent dated July 15, 2022, to the respondent's OCA-registered email address, as well as via CMRRR and first-class mail to her OCA-registered business address, demanding that the respondent submit her written answer forthwith, together with an explanation of her failure to timely cooperate. The respondent did not submit a written answer nor ask for additional time in which to do so. On August 24, 2022, the respondent was served with a judicial subpoena and a judicial subpoena duces tecum at her OCA-registered business address, requiring her to appear at the Grievance Committee's office on September 8, 2022. On or about August 30, 2022, copies of both subpoenas were additionally emailed to the respondent at her OCA-registered email address. The respondent failed to appear on September 8, 2022, and did not request an adjournment of the appearance. By letter dated November 28, 2022, sent via email, CMRRR, and first-class mail to the same OCA-registered email and business addresses, the Grievance Committee provided copies of its prior correspondence with the respondent, including the judicial subpoenas, and again demanded that she submit forthwith her written answer and an explanation of her failure to cooperate. The respondent failed to do so and did not request an extension of time. On December 20, 2022, another judicial subpoena and judicial subpoena duces tecum were served on the respondent at her OCA-registered business address, requiring her to appear at the Grievance Committee's office on January 13, 2023. By email on January 13, 2023 at 8:59 a.m., the respondent requested an adjournment of her appearance scheduled for that day, citing her inability to board an airplane and return to the United States due to her travel documents being "rejected." The Grievance Committee replied on the same day, granting the respondent's request. Her appearance was adjourned to January 27, 2023, on which date she was required to appear virtually, and she was directed to submit her written answer prior to January 27, 2023. The respondent failed to appear virtually on January 27, 2023, and did not request a further adjournment of her appearance. As of the date of the petition, May 12, 2023, the respondent had not submitted her written answer to the complaint. Based on the factual specifications of charge one, charge two alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the respondent's final amended answer dated November 7, 2024, she admitted all but one factual specification of the petition, denying only that she failed to submit her written answer to the complaint, and denied all conclusions of law. The Hearing and Hearing Record The respondent testified that she moved to the United States from Jamaica in 1979 to pursue her childhood dream of becoming a lawyer. Following her graduation from Touro Law Center, she worked as a sole practitioner in the areas of real estate and family law. She closed her law office during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, because there was little work and she was afraid for her own health due to her chronic high blood pressure. She continued to run her law practice out of her home and worked with another attorney who made court appearances while the [*3]respondent handled the administrative aspects of the practice and interacted with clients. The Gore complaint was entered into evidence by the Grievance Committee. In it, Gore alleged that the respondent and her daughter, who is also an attorney, represented Gore as the seller in a real estate closing which took place in December 2021. According to Gore, the respondent and her daughter failed to provide Gore with copies of the complete closing documents and failed to pay Gore the full amount of the sale proceeds that she was entitled to. Gore alleged that she followed up with the respondent and her daughter on multiple occasions, requesting the missing funds and documents, but was ultimately unsuccessful. Gore claimed that, based on "the seller's documents" emailed to her by the respondent's daughter, she was entitled to $84,379.44 from the closing, but she ultimately received only $41,500. According to Gore, the explanation of this discrepancy provided by the respondent was that Gore had agreed to pay all of the closing costs, an agreement that Gore claimed to be unaware of. The respondent testified that the Gore matter was being handled in another court, although additional details were not provided. By way of background, the respondent testified that she had a close relationship with Gore, having represented other members of her family, and that the respondent was therefore very affected by Gore's complaint. With regard to the Gore complaint, the respondent also stated the following: "[s]o I basically took that to heart, and it sounds—and I just curled up and just stopped. And I just stopped. I stopped—I just handed everything else over to [the other attorney that the respondent worked with] and I just—I just couldn't handle all of what was happening." The respondent struggled to explain exactly what happened or why she did not respond to the Grievance Committee's inquiries. She testified that, essentially, when she saw the envelope from the Grievance Committee notifying her of the Gore complaint, she was gripped by "absolute" fear and became immobilized. Her focus became surviving a confluence of issues which included her personal health complications, the COVID-19 pandemic, her travel between the United States and Jamaica, and the Grievance Committee's investigation. She acknowledged that she should have sought help, but admitted that she could not articulate to others what was happening. The respondent also claimed that she was coping much better at the time of her hearing, based on having talked to many people, including her priest, her friends, and other attorneys about her experience. Although the respondent provided no evidence that she received any formal mental health diagnosis or treatment, she claimed that she would react differently if she had a similar experience in the future, starting with seeking help. The respondent initially testified that she had no disciplinary history, but later claimed to have forgotten that she had a prior Admonition, personally delivered, related to her involvement in two "straw deal" real estate transactions. According to the Admonition letter, the respondent knew or should have known that these real estate transactions were fraudulent. The respondent testified that she did not intend to be uncooperative with the Grievance Committee and apologized for her conduct. She provided the affidavits of two individuals attesting to her good character. The Special Referee's Report The Special Referee found that the respondent committed the charges alleged in the petition, thereby sustaining both charges. The Special Referee stated that the respondent was "somewhat evasive and contradictory in her testimony," but "[found] that she was suffering from a mental condition." He noted that the respondent appeared genuinely remorseful for her conduct, and that she was unlikely to repeat it. He did not find that this excused her substantial professional misconduct in failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. By notice of motion and affirmation, both dated May 5, 2025, the Grievance Committee moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. The Grievance Committee confirms that the respondent received an Admonition dated March 11, 2014. In the respondent's reply to the Grievance Committee's motion, she asserts that a public censure is the appropriate sanction in this matter. She argues that a public censure recognizes the gravity of her conduct while also accounting for her "compelling mitigating circumstances" and her "clear capacity for continued ethical practice." She expresses her remorse and notes in mitigation, inter alia, the lack of client harm or escrow misuse, her acceptance of responsibility, and her current improved mental and emotional health. Findings and Conclusion In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing and the respondent's admissions, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained both charges in the petition. Accordingly, the [*4]Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted. In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we have considered in mitigation, among other things, the respondent's admissions and remorse with regard to her misconduct and her mental and physical health issues. However, we have also considered the respondent's prior disciplinary history and that her lack of cooperation with the Grievance Committee resulted in her failure to timely address a client complaint. Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that the respondent's conduct warrants her suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months. LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS, and BRATHWAITE NELSON, 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, Judy T. Campbell, admitted as Judy Tycia Campbell, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, commencing October 30, 2026, and continuing until further order of this Court. The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than March 30, 2027. In such application (see 22 NYCRR 1240.16), the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof that during the period of suspension, she (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), and (3) otherwise properly conducted herself; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Judy T. Campbell, admitted as Judy Tycia Campbell, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15); and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until the further order of this Court, the respondent, Judy T. Campbell, admitted as Judy Tycia Campbell, 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 herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further, ORDERED that if the respondent, Judy T. Campbell, admitted as Judy Tycia Campbell, 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 her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f). ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court