Geography Determines Attorney Misconduct....(CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY)

The lawyer busted for forging a judge's order made only one mistake. His office should have been in The Bronx or Manhattan.....MORE....….

Location, Location, Location

Had attorney Laurence Jurman only had a law office under the closed eyes of Thomas J. Cahill of the First Department's Disciplinary Committee, one simple phone call would have made his little fraud go away. Yes, even a little problem like faking a judge' s order can be swiftly buried by the C & C crew at 61 Broadway (Cahill and Cohen).

While we anxiously await the formal announcement, which will be any day, of the name of the poor person who will be cleaning up Tom Cahill's mess at the DDC, we leave you with Vesselin Mitev's New York Law Journal article:

After Screwing Up Case, NY Lawyer Busted for Faking Judge's Order
New York LawyerOctober 15, 2007
By Vesselin Mitev
New York Law Journal

What started as a dispute between neighbors over a swimming pool has led to the arrest of a Long Island attorney. Laurence S. Jurman of Dix Hills allegedly forged the name of Supreme Court Justice William Rebolini to a judicial order in a civil lawsuit filed as the result of the dispute, according to a statement issued by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office in May of this year.

On Wednesday, Mr. Jurman, 40, appearing without counsel, pleaded not guilty to a single count of criminal possession of a forged document in the second degree, a class D felony punishable by 2 1/3 to 7 years in prison.

Mr. Jurman was released on his own recognizance by District Judge Paul Hensley and is due back to court on Nov. 19. Mr. Jurman, who was admitted to the state bar in 1991, allegedly advised his clients, plaintiffs who were dissatisfied with the pace of their lawsuit, that Justice Rebolini on May 4 had denied a motion to vacate a nonexistent default by defendants. He subsequently supplied plaintiffs with a copy of the order purportedly signed by Justice Rebolini. Mr. Jurman could not be reached for comment Friday night.

The background of Mr. Jurman's arrest is spelled out in a decision handed down last month by Supreme Court Justice Edward D. Burke allowing the plaintiffs more time to effect service of a summons and complaint that had laid dormant since being filed four years ago.

In Yahney v. Wolforst, 16106/03, Justice Burke refused to penalize plaintiffs Jeff and Deborah Yahney for relying on Mr. Jurman. "While the court acknowledges the absence of diligence and the extended length of the delay of four (4) years in effecting service upon the defendants, both of these factors are attributable solely to egregious conduct on the part of the plaintiffs' former counsel, which this court will not impute to the plaintiffs," the judge wrote. He said he was forwarding a copy of his order and supporting papers to the district attorney and the grievance committee of the Tenth Judicial District.

According to the decision, the Yahneys accused Joe and Orsola Wolforst of negligently building a retaining wall and berm, resulting in water damage to the Yahneys' property due to the changed grade of their land. Around June 2003, the Yahneys retained Mr. Jurman to sue the Wolforsts for monetary damages and a permanent injunction.

On June 10, 2003, a summons and complaint was filed in Suffolk County Supreme Court and an index number assigned. And that is where the legal process ended, Justice Burke said. "Plaintiffs expected that the defendants would be served with the summons and complaint and that the action would proceed in the normal course," he said. "However, this action remained dormant and without any judicial intervention as the same was not initialized by the filing of a Request for Judicial Information until the interposition of this ex parte application for relief pursuant to CPLR 306-b on September 20, 2007."

Assurances Given The judge said that Mr. Jurman repeatedly assured the Yahneys that their lawsuit was proceeding normally. After Mr. Jurman filed the summons and complaint, he provided plaintiffs with a copy of an answer dated Aug. 15, 2003, allegedly prepared by the law firm of Tartamella Tartamella & Fresolone of Hauppauge.

At a subsequent consultation in May 2004, the judge wrote, Mr. Jurman said he had prepared a motion to dismiss an answer served by the defendants due to their failure to appear for depositions. He later claimed his motion was conditionally granted by the court in July 2005 and finally granted, unconditionally, on Dec. 1, 2005. After that, Mr. Jurman advised the Yahneys that the Wolforsts had retained Ciotti & Damm of Mineola, and that they had moved to vacate the defendants' previously adjudicated default.

Around June of this year, Mr. Jurman allegedly told the Yahneys that Justice Rebolini had denied the Wolforsts' motion to vacate the default, and then showed them the purported order. He advised them that he was preparing for a trial on damages that remained unscheduled. The law firms mentioned by Mr. Jurman did not return calls for comment.

"Growing increasingly impatient of the slow progress of their case and suspicious of the representations of attorney Jurman with respect thereto, the plaintiffs contacted court personnel and the attorneys who purportedly appeared herein on behalf of the defendants," the judge wrote, "and discovered that their summons and complaint had not been served on the defendants; that the action had never been assigned to a Judicial Part; and that no motions were interposed herein nor orders issued by the court in this action."

Exceptional Case

The Yahneys fired Mr. Jurman and filed a complaint with the state grievance committee in July. Harvey Savitt, their new attorney, then moved, under CPLR 306-b to resurrect the case by showing "good cause" for an extension of the 120-day period after filing within which service normally must be accomplished. "I had to lay bare the facts - there was good cause - the fraud of counsel leading [the Yahneys] to believe the action was continuing was egregious," said Mr. Savitt, a partner at Savitt, Krantz & Sellman in Commack, who also submitted an engineer's report showing how the property had been damaged. "They had an attorney who convinced them everything was hunky-dory."

Justice Burke said the interests of justice justified an extension. "While it has been established that a finding of good cause is generally precluded where no steps were taken to effect service and the good cause asserted by the movant is attributed to generalized claims of 'law office failure,' good cause is properly established in exceptional cases wherein the plaintiff's failure to serve process in a timely manner was the result of circumstances beyond the plaintiff's control," the judge said. According to Mr. Savitt, over the four years, his clients' land has taken a big hit. "It started out as a simple property dispute," he said. "For four years they've had a lake in their backyard."