"The Committee has met its burden," the justices wrote. "While [Fox] partially cooperated [with the grievance committee's investigation] by producing some of his bookkeeping records and appearing for a deposition, he has not produced the bulk of the records, including his [attorney escrow account] ledger, and other documents as directed by judicial subpoena and repeatedly requested by the Committee since 2019."

In a lengthy opinion, the justices detailed many records requests that were made between Jan. 31 to Dec. 23, 2020. They also set out in detail numerous claims Fox made to the grievance committee about the checks in question, along with his assertion that he paid $17,000 to his client out of his own money due to what he said was a sense of personal responsibility, according to the justices.

The justices' decision indicated that Fox hadn't fully backed up certain claims about the checks and his supposed personal-funds payment of $17,000 to his client. It further indicated that key records he still hasn't turned over to the grievance committee—namely, his escrow account ledger and certain retainer agreements—may shed some light on the validity or invalidity of certain claims Fox has made.

Fox, who according to a LinkedIn profile online runs a law practice called S Fox Law Group, could not be reached for comment. The First Department opinion listed Fox as representing himself pro se in the ongoing disciplinary matter. It also noted that he was admitted to the New York State bar in 1990, but said that "at all times relevant to this proceeding, he maintained an office in Connecticut."

"This Court maintains jurisdiction based upon his admission for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department" in New York, the decision also stated.

The online websites Lawyer.com and Avvo.com list S Fox Law Group as located in Greenwich, Connecticut.

In detailing some of the numerous exchanges between Fox and the grievance committee, which began after the committee launched an investigation in March 2019 into the bounced checks, the justices said in November 2019 Fox told the committee by mail that his bank had erroneously reported the checks as dishonored to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection.

Fox claimed his client, who the justices referred to only as "J.P.", was to have received $16,458 in repayment of funds the client had loaned out to finance a telecommunications venture, but that J.P. had become concerned he'd encounter tax issues given that one of the three escrow checks in question had a memo note on it stating "loan" instead of "investment return," according to the decision.

Following the client's wishes, Fox told the committee, he then canceled the escrow checks and instead sent $17,000 to J.P. using two bank cashier's checks for $7,500 and $4,030 and the balance in cash, according to the justices.

And Fox included in his email to the committee, a photo showing the fronts of two cashier checks payable to J.P. and a bank envelope, along with certain bank statement information, the justices wrote.

But during a January 31, 2020, judicially subpoenaed deposition before the committee, Fox testified, that the borrower had defaulted on J.P.'s loan; that because of his tax-related concerns J.P. didn't want the return of his investment money to appear to be repayment of a usurious loan; and that "out of a sense of personal responsibility respondent [Fox] repaid J.P $17,000 out of his own personal funds of which his client was fully aware," according to the justices.

Fox "further testified that: he repaid J.P. out of a $35,000 legal fee earned in another matter which he maintained in his IOLA [attorney trust] account and withdrew in increment" and that he "kept the $35,000 earned legal fee in his IOLA account because he had previously been victimized by two alleged financial fraudsters" and that "he paid personal expenses out of his escrow account 'only for a couple of months'" before stopping the practice, the justices wrote.

Fox also testified, among other things, that "he admittedly issued the three dishonored checks at issue when his escrow account had a zero balance because he had been led to believe that the monies owed to J.P. were on the way" and that "J.P. deposited the escrow checks in contravention of respondent's [Fox's] instruction not to do so until he received confirmation of repayment," the justices wrote.

The First Department panel, composed of Justices Dianne Renwick, Barbara Kapnick, Anil Singh, Lizbeth González and Tanya Kennedy, noted in their June 29 opinion that Fox's "initial response to the Committee made no mention of the fact that he paid J.P. out of his personal funds," and they wrote that at the deposition the committee requested Fox to produce numerous additional bookkeeping including his trust account ledger from October 2018 through February 2019.

Fox agreed to submit to the committee the additional documents by March 2, 2020, the justices further wrote, but never did submit certain specifically requested documents despite receiving at east five additional requests from the committee along with certain other reminders.

For example, wrote the justices, "on May 27, 2020, the Committee emailed respondent [Fox] a letter informing him that the requested documents were to be submitted within two weeks and advised that his failure to cooperate with its investigation could result in his interim suspension. By June 15, 2020 email, respondent stated that he intended to comply with the Committee's requests 'within the next few weeks' and explained that he had been prevented from doing so earlier because of the mandatory lockdowns caused by COVID and medical issues."

The justices later wrote in the opinion that "from October 8, 2020 to December 23, 2020, the Committee sent respondent [Fox] several certified letters and emails requesting that respondent submit the aforementioned material," and that despite Fox answering and apologizing for the delay "ultimately, respondent never submitted the requested material."