Complaint Review: Andrew Spinnell - New York New York

ANDREW J. SPINNELL - DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT LETTER                               

In a September 20  letter to the Disciplinary Committee of the New York State Appellate Court, First Department written by a partner of a well known Wall Street law firm of which excerpts are reproduced below, Andrew J. Spinnell is accused of lying and committing perjury.

Here are the experts from the letter to the Disciplinary Committee.

 "I am writing this committee with respect to certain testimony Andrew J. Spinnell recently gave in the trial of his defamation action against my client which I believe was false and made with knowledge that said testimony was false. Mr. Spinnell also gave testimony which led me to believe that he either failed to report discipline imposed in Connecticut, or that he gave false testimony regarding whether he has been disciplined in New York. Furthermore, Mr. Spinnell testified he failed to keep a copy of his retainer agreement with my client for seven years. Finally, I believe Mr. Spinnell's testimony involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, prejudiced the administration of justice and cast doubt on his fitness to practice law. Therefore, I believe I am bound by 22 NYCRR § 1200.4 (DR 1-103) to report Mr. Spinnell's conduct."

"I believe Mr. Spinnell's trial testimony contained at least two instances of perjury. . . ."

"Mr. Spinnell also lied when he testified about why he failed to pay unemployment taxes. Prior to trial, Mr. Spinnell testified at his deposition that he believed his student employees were exempt because there was an exemption for students who's employment was primarily to enrich their school curriculum, which had been amended sometime after the edition of McKinney's that was located in his library. A copy of the relevant pages of Mr. Spinnell's deposition is annexed hereto as Exhibit "E". Indeed, Mr. Spinnell wrote a letter to the Unemployment Insurance Tax division in 1998 making this argument in writing, relying on Labor Law § 511(15). A copy of Mr. Spinnell's July 1, 1998 letter in evidence is annexed hereto as Exhibit "F". At trial, Mr. Spinnell testified that he relied on § 511(15) before the Unemployment Insurance Tax division. A copy of the relevant page of the trial transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit "G". This exemption, however, applies only to students employed by educational institutions, exempting educational institutions from paying unemployment insurance taxes for their student employees. Moreover, although this paragraph was amended once, in 1998, it has always applied exclusively to educational institutions. Thus, it is clear that Mr. Spinnell could never have reasonably relied on this exemption as the basis for failing to pay unemployment insurance taxes.

 When he testified at trial, however, Mr. Spinnell said he believed his student employees were exempt under a different exemption, one that exempted all day students and had been amended to exempt only elementary and secondary school students. A copy of the relevant page of the trial transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit "H". That paragraph, § 511(9), was amended in 1969 from an exemption for a part-time worker "actually in regular attendance during the day time as a student in an institution of learning," to "actually in regular attendance during the day time as a student in an elementary or secondary school." I would note that Mr. Spinnell's reliance on a pre-1969 McKinney's in the 1990's casts doubt on his fitness to practice law. 22 NYCRR § 1200.3(a)(7). In any case, Mr. Spinnell could not have had a good faith belief that his all student employees were exempt under this exemption, which applies only to day students, since he identified two of his student employees as evening students in his July 1998 letter.

 Moreover, since Labor Law § 511(15) was enacted in 1971, Mr. Spinnell could not have cited this provision unless his edition of McKinney's was published after 1972. However, since Mr. Spinnell's reliance on § 511(9) depends on his edition predating the statute's amendment in 1969, his reference to § 511(15) is proof that he never relied on the pre-amendment version of § 511(9), contrary to his trial testimony. Thus, not only is there a substantial basis for believing Mr. Spinnell's testimony was knowingly false, there is a substantial basis for believing Mr. Spinnell failure to pay unemployment insurance taxes was not the result of an honest mistake but that instead, he simply invented a sham explanation for his failure to pay after the fact, "as a creative lawyer". A copy of the relevant pages of the trial transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit "I". Indeed, Mr. Spinnell's contention that his student paralegals were independent contractors showed he was either not fit to be a lawyer because he failed to adequately supervise untrained students assisting him in legal matters or that he simply invented a sham excuse after failing to pay taxes. At the very least, Mr. Spinnell's testimony was dishonest, fraudulent, deceitful, or a misrepresentation, and prejudiced the administration of justice, violating 22 NYCRR § 1200.3(a)(4) and (5).

"On the other hand, if this committee did discipline Mr. Spinnell in the past, then he lied under oath, yet again. Therefore, I believe there is a substantial likelihood that Mr. Spinnell either lied under oath about the absence of any disciplinary sanctions against him in New York, or that he never reported the disciplinary sanction in Connecticut in violation of 22 NYCRR § 603.3(d) and 22 NYCRR § 1200.3(a)(5), requiring discipline for that failure as well as reciprocal discipline for the conduct underlying the Connecticut reprimand.

 "Finally, and purely for this committee's information, Esther Yang, a subpoenaed non-party witness, testified that Mr. Spinnell lied to the court while representing her ex-husband, and threatened both Ms. Yang and her mother, allegations which, if true, prove Mr. Spinnell violated 22 NYCRR § 1200.3(a)(4), (5) and (7) among other disciplinary rules. A copy of the relevant pages of the trial transcript is annexed hereto as Exhibit "P"."

As you can see from the above, a prominent lawyer from a Wall Street law firm has demonstrated that Andrew J. Spinnell has engaged in testimony that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, prejudiced the administration of justice and cast doubt on his fitness to practice law.

You should also know that Andrew Spinnell says that his reprimand is no big deal as it is the lowest form of discipline that can be imposed. Andrew simply does not get it. He does not understand that a discipline against an attorney is a black mark for unethical conduct that never disappears from his reputation.

He was sanctioned in the amount of $5,000 by Judge Martin for frivolous motion practice in Federal Court

He sued Toshiba for a minor hearing loss from use of its headphones and was sanctioned in New York State Supreme Court in that lawsuit.

He was found by the Appellate Court to have not paid his employee's unemployment insurance taxes

Andrew J. Spinnell was sued for legal malpractice three times.

One case for $250,000 involving his handling of a breach of contract action for which he did not carry malpractice insurance was dismissed as being time barred as it was brought too late. Another case for for big bucks for which he did not carry malpractice insurance was settled before a trial date was set. We hear that the plaintiff is very happy with all the money he received. The third case is presently open in New York State Supreme Court, New York County. We do not know if he is insured in this case since he won't answer the question on this point when asked in a letter offering a legal referral.

Andrew J. Spinnell is a very bad man.

I wouldn't use him as my attorney, certainly after he was sued for malpractice three times. Nor should you.