In September of 2003 James Meiskin’s apartment was broken into by someone who was acquainted with Mr. Meiskin. This individual stole personal property, damaged his apartment, and left the premises with a flat screen TV. Fortunately, residents in the building reported the break-in and police arrived in time to catch the thief with Mr. Meiskin’s flat screen TV in his possession.
At the time of this occurrence, Mr. Meiskin communicated what had occurred to an attorney named Sam Gen, who was introduced to Mr. Meiskin, in connection with his business ventures. Mr. Gen represented to Mr. Meiskin (as his resume stated), that he had an extensive legal background previously at Philip Morris and Merrill Lynch. Mr. Gen told Mr. Meiskin that he would take care of the matter on his behalf.
As was later determined by the New York Appellate Division in a reported ruling upholding Mr. Gen’s disbarment from the practice of law in the State of New York, Mr. Gen completely misrepresented his legal background. While he had a legal education, he in fact had never practiced law at the aforementioned firms, having held only non-legal positions and was completely unqualified to provide any advice on this legal matter.
Mr. Gen advised Mr. Meiskin at that time, that on account of his damages, he could get a settlement from the culprit (now a criminal defendant), who stole his television and damaged his apartment, and that it was legal to do so. Mr. Meiskin had never had any involvement with such a situation before, and understandably relied entirely on his attorney’s counsel. Sam Gen then drafted a settlement agreement specifying that his client would seek not to testify against the defendant, and would, among other things, recommend leniency to the court and treatment for a drug addiction, in exchange for which the defendant would privately settle the matter by making a payment to Mr. Meiskin.
Moving forward without any knowledge on Mr. Meiskin’s part, Mr. Gen threatened the defendant that he would suffer if he didn’t settle the matter. Had Mr. Meiskin been aware of these unethical actions, he would immediately have ceased any involvement in any settlement with the defendant. The defendant informed the District Attorney’s office of Mr. Gen’s actions, and the DA then had both Mr. Gen and Mr. Meiskin questioned in the matter. Regardless of the fact that Mr. Meiskin was not aware of his attorney’s improper actions, he became implicated in the matter and was subject to the DA’s investigation.
Having relied exclusively on Mr. Gen as his attorney in the matter, Mr. Meiskin was unaware that a settlement of damages in exchange for agreeing not to testify against the defendant in a criminal case was not permissible. The fact that his attorney had drafted such a settlement and thought it was permissible showed the depth of this attorney’s inexperience. It turns out it wasn’t permissible, and Mr. Gen lacked the experience to be acting as legal counsel in such an important situation.
In the end, James Meiskin decided to settle the matter with the district attorney for community service in 2004. At the time of this settlement with the District Attorney, Mr. Meiskin was not aware that Mr. Gen had severely misrepresented his qualifications. Had Mr. Meiskin known this about Mr. Gen, he would have not settled the matter with the district attorney because his attorney’s misrepresentations would have been a major factor in Mr. Meiskin’s defense to the charge against him. Subsequently, Mr. Gen was disbarred by the State of New York from the practice of law. In a written opinion by the New York Appellate Division dated April 23, 2006 as reported in the North County Gazette two years after the settlement, the Appellate Division found that Mr. Gen had fabricated his legal experience. The New York Appellate Division confirmed that these actions against Mr. Gen warranted the 2004 misdemeanor charge, and his disbarment from practicing law.
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/042306ResumeDisbar.html