The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh and Thirteenth Judicial Districts wanted to have Russell Cheek removed from the roll of New York attorneys based on his disbarment by a neighboring state.
While practicing law in New Jersey, Cheek acted as the administrator of an estate, and was required to temporarily hold $7,000 in escrow.
He supposedly made the deposit on March 21, 1994, was obligated to return the money on January 12, 1999, but didn't do so (despite repeated demands) until April 12, 2005.
While Cheek claimed he "removed" the $7,000 in 2001, and replaced the proceeds in 2004, the account statements showed otherwise. (And, after Cheek allegedly failed to cooperate with an audit requested by New Jersey's disciplinary authorities, he was disbarred by that state in 2008.)
Because of the seriousness of the misconduct, the Appellate Division, Second Department, thought the guy should also be prohibited from practicing law in New York.
Wasn't that Cheeky?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Cheek