Judges

Attorneys and Parties

Brief Summary

Background

Anthony Servall Chilliest was admitted in 1995 and practiced in the First Judicial Department. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department (AGC) charged him based on his handling of proceeds from the sale of a residential apartment owned by an estate he represented. The charges alleged that he deposited part of the buyer's down payment into business accounts, released all sale proceeds to one of three heirs before Surrogate's Court proceedings were completed, failed to keep the estate funds segregated, commingled them with business funds, failed to maintain required bookkeeping records, and engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer. After initial default motion practice, respondent answered, a Referee was appointed, hearings were held in 2025, and the Referee later sustained seven of eight charges and recommended a four-year suspension. Separately, the Court had already immediately suspended respondent on March 12, 2026, based on evidence of conversion or misappropriation of escrow funds and his failure to cooperate with the AGC.

Lower Court Decision

The Referee found respondent guilty of seven charges arising from non-venal misappropriation of client or third-party funds, commingling, and bookkeeping failures, but declined to sustain the eighth charge under rule 8.4(h) on the view that the rule did not separately apply when the conduct already violated other disciplinary rules. The Referee recommended a four-year suspension.

Appellate Division Reversal

The Appellate Division confirmed the Referee's findings on charges 1 through 7 and the recommended sanction, but reversed the Referee's determination on charge 8. The Court sustained charge 8 as well, holding that respondent's misconduct also violated rule 8.4(h) [conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's fitness]. It then suspended respondent from the practice of law for four years, effective immediately and until further order of the Court, and directed compliance with Judiciary Law § 90 [governs attorney discipline and suspension obligations] and 22 NYCRR 1240.15 [rules governing the conduct of suspended or disbarred attorneys].

Legal Significance

The decision reinforces that rule 8.4(h) may be charged in addition to other specific disciplinary violations when the same conduct reflects adversely on a lawyer's fitness. It also shows that the First Department will impose a suspension at the top of the usual range for non-venal misappropriation and bookkeeping violations where there is failure to cooperate with the AGC and prior similar disciplinary history, including prior admonitions for misappropriation, commingling, and recordkeeping failures.