New Rochelle lawyer disciplined for pattern of misconduct

A New Rochelle lawyer has been suspended from the practice of law for one year for mishandling his escrow account and failure to cooperate with an investigation.

Five judges of the Second Appellate Court confirmed on Aug. 28 the findings of a special referee who found that Aubrey C. Galloway III “engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer.”

Galloway graduated from Pace Law School in 2010, and worked several years at a Manhattan firm defending health care providers in medical malpractice cases. In 2015 he opened his own practice, taking on personal injury, medical malpractice, landlord-tenant and criminal cases. (His website shows an office address in New Rochelle but his state registration lists a Scarsdale address.)

In 2020, the lawyers grievance committee for Westchester and nearby counties filed a disciplinary proceeding against Galloway, based on a complaint brought by a client.

The committee accused Galloway of failure to fully cooperate with its investigation. He repeatedly failed to provide written answers to the client’s complaint, according to the appellate court decision, and did not comply with a subpoena to testify and produce records.

Eventually, he did testify and answer the client’s complaint.

The grievance committee also accused him of mishandling his escrow account by not establishing a clear trail of how funds were disbursed.

In 2021, the appellate court referred the case to a special referee, White Plains lawyer John J. Halloran Jr. In 2022, Galloway admitted to the factual allegations but denied the legal conclusions.

Galloway blamed his failure to answer charges and subpoenas on a woman who handled his office mail.

The woman was employed by another lawyer in the office suite but not by Galloway, the appellate decision states. She is the mother of Galloway’s son and the daughter of the other lawyer. And, Galloway claimed, she blames him for her father’s disbarment in 2018.

Last year, Halloran sustained the charges. He noted that Galloway had stipulated to the facts. He found it implausible that his mail was sabotaged.

He also found that Galloway did not show genuine remorse or accept responsibility. But the escrow account problems did not harm any client and did not appear to be motivated by self-enrichment, subterfuge or dishonesty.

The grievance committee noted a pattern of misconduct: Galloway had been admonished four times on previous complaints by four separate clients for similar misconduct.

The grievance committee asked the appellate court to confirm Halloran’s report.

Galloway asked the court to disaffirm the referee’s findings and dismiss all charges. If the court did decide to discipline him, he asked that it be limited to a public censure.

The appellate judges confirmed the referee’s report and suspended Galloway for a year, beginning Sept. 27.