12/21/12

On Wednesday, the Appellate Division, Second Department confirmed a suspension of a matrimonial lawyer, whose brother stole more than $4 million from the escrow accounts of the law firm of the concerned lawyer. In its order, the appeals court found that suspension was the appropriate punishment for Peter Galasso, founding partner of Galasso Langione Catterson & Lofrumento in Long Island.


The court wrote in its brief order, “The most fundamental obligation of attorneys entrusted with client funds is the duty to safeguard those funds.”

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

In the instant case, Peter Galasso's brother, Anthony Galasso, who worked as a bookkeeper in the firm, stole more than $4 million from escrow funds and took meticulous steps to hide the embezzlement. Anthony confessed to the thefts in 2007 and was sentenced to prison for falsifying business records, criminal possession of a forged instrument and grand larceny.

However, the Grievance Committee for the 9^th Judicial District brought charges of professional misconduct against Peter Galasso, holding that he could not escape the liability of failing to protect the money of his clients. In February, the Second Department sustained all charges brought against Galasso and suspended him from practicing law for two years.

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Reviews

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed nine out of the ten charges brought against Galasso and remanded the case to the Second Department including the requirement for a determination on whether the two-year suspension was appropriate.

Galasso pointed out his innocence, the steps he took to bring his brother to justice, and also to compensate his clients as mitigating factors that should be considered, and at most he could be censored publicly, but a two-year suspension was excessive.

However, the Second Department failed to be moved by his pleas and wrote, “We reiterate that the respondent failed to maintain appropriate vigilance over his firm's bank accounts, resulting in actual and substantial harm to clients.”

The case is In the Matter of Galasso, New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, No. 2010-01047.