Pleasant Valley lawyer Thomas F. Vasti III has been suspended from the practice of law for one year for repeatedly mishandling a wrongful death lawsuit.
A panel of five Second Appellate Division justices upheld nine charges of professional misconduct, Feb. 17, including a charge of dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
“Although the charges of misconduct involve only one client matter,” the judges ruled, Vasti “made multiple troubling decisions.”
Vasti began practicing law with his father in 1992, handling medical malpractice, family law and landlord-tenant cases.
He also served as Pleasant Valley town justice for five years until resigning suddenly last September, citing personal and health issues.
In 2012, he filed a wrongful death lawsuit for Amanda Mandes and Rafiq Akbar, whose child had died shortly after birth. In 2016, the defendants asked Dutchess County Supreme Court for a summary judgment. Vasti did not oppose the motion and the case was dismissed.
Vasti did not tell his clients about the motion for summary judgment, his expertopinion that the evidence did not support their case, his decision not to oppose summary judgment or the court”™s decision to dismiss the case.
Mandes and Akbar tried to contact Vasti about the status of the case but he did not respond. When the couple did talk with Vasti in 2017, he claimed he had voluntarily withdrawn the action from the trial calendar, the case was still viable and he would get it back on the calendar.
The grievance committee for the Ninth Judicial District accused him of nine violations of the rules of professional conduct. He engaged in dishonest conduct and exceeded his authority in a client matter. He failed to promptly inform his clients of developments, keep them informed on the case status, consult on the means to accomplish their objectives, comply with requests for information, explain his fees, file a retainer statement, or cooperate with the grievance committee investigation.
Vasti “largely admitted the factual specifications,” according to the justices”™ opinion and asked for a hearing by a special referee to consider mitigating circumstances. The referee sustained the charges.
Vasti”™s attorney, Richard M. Maltz, asked for a public censure, citing his client”™s personal struggles; remorse; lack of venality; and evidence of good character, charitable works and civic activity.
The appellate justices were troubled that Vasti”™s failure to keep his clients informed deprived them of the opportunity of consulting with a different attorney or medical expert. Moreover, he “took deliberate steps to hide material developments from his clients,” who didn”™t learn details of how the case was mishandled for nearly two years after it was dismissed.
The justices also cited an extensive disciplinary history: three admonitions and four letters of caution involving similar misconduct.
Justices William F. Mastro, Leonard B. Austin, Cheryl E. Chambers, Robert J. Miller and Reinaldo E. Rivera concurred.
The one-year suspension will begin March 19.
