I've been doing research on lawyer discipline. A lawyer in Manhattan who converts escrow money will almost certainly be disbarred. A lawyer in Brooklyn, Albany or Buffalo who does the same will likely be suspended or even censured. This is because NY, alone among US jurisdicitons, has decentralized discipline.
So that's a problem. But there's yet a second disparity. A Manhattan lawyer who steals money in other ways will only be suspended. Yesterday, the intermediate appellate court in Manhattan disciplined a lawyer named Lerner who over the years charged clients $50,000 for private car services used by his family. (His firm eventually caught and said it would report him if he did not report himself, which he did.)
If Lerner had taken the same sum from his escrow acount (or even a tenth as much), he'd be disbarred. But not Lerner. The court identified other cases with financial shenanigans and concluded:
"Balancing all mitigating and aggravating factors, [Lerner's] misconduct warrants a one-year suspension ( see Matter of Carmody, 32 A.D.3d 173, 819 N.Y.S.2d 518 [1st Dept 2006] [one-year suspension for billing 129 hours of personal telephone calls to firm clients over a two-year period for a total of $30,000]; Matter of Stone, 230 A.D.2d 481, 657 N.Y.S.2d 2 [1st Dept 1997] [one-year suspension based on petit larceny conviction for over billing the Assigned Counsel Plan approximately $6,000]; Matter of Ruegger, 207 A.D.2d 166, 621 N.Y.S.2d 308 [1st Dept 1995][one-year suspension based on federal misdemeanor conviction for defrauding the U.S. Department of HUD by submitting falsely inflated billing statements];Matter of Denhoffer, 127 A.D.2d 230, 514 N.Y.S.2d 733 [1st Dept 1987] [attorney with unblemished record suspended for one year for, among other things, taking advantage of and over billing immigration clients] )."
Perhaps it's possible to distinguish Lerner's and the other lawyers' conduct from conversion, but I have a hard time seeing it.