Norwalk lawyer to resign after failing to pay clients real estate closing funds, documents state
[ad_1]
NORWALK — A local attorney plans to resign and will not seek readmission to the state bar amid an investigation into complaints that he failed to pay clients funds from real estate closings, according to court documents.
Norwalk attorney Carl Ferraro’s license to practice law in Connecticut was suspended March 15, after a judge found he “poses a threat of irreparable harm to current and prospective clients,” according to an order filed in Stamford Superior Court. The order also appointed a trustee to take control of his client’s accounts and notify them of Ferraro’s suspension.
The action stems from complaints against Ferraro from at least four clients who alleged they “are owed funds from real estate closings,” the application for his suspension states. The Norwalk Police Department is “investigating several complaints,” the filing also states.
A spokesperson for the Norwalk Police Department said the agency “is investigating multiple complaints against Mr. Ferraro of that nature,” but said further information could not be released because of the ongoing investigations.
Suzanne Sutton, Ferraro’s attorney, did not immediately respond to an email Monday seeking comment on the allegations, but wrote in a court filing that her client “intends to resign and waive the right to readmission to the Connecticut State Bar.”
“To that end, he has previously tendered a resignation to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel,” she continued. “To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, [Ferraro] is presently in a rehabilitation facility and is unable to have any contact with anyone for the next two weeks.”
The type of rehab facility was not referenced in the court documents.
Ferraro was admitted to the state bar on December 7, 1990 and has no history of discipline, according to the application for his suspension.
A grievance complaint was filed against Ferraro on March 3 after a check he wrote for more than $400,000 bounced for insufficient funds, according to the court document.
“Although the respondent ultimately wired sufficient funds to the complainant, an investigation of the complaint is currently pending,” the application states.
[ad_2]
Source link