IN RE: Bibi B. MUSAFIRI (2019)

IN THE MATTER OF BIBI S. MUSAFIRI, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY

Respondent Bibi S. Musafiri was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on March 23, 2006, under the name Bibi Bahizi Musafiri. Respondent's last registered address was within the First Department.

By order of April 9, 2015, respondent was publicly censured for, inter alia, neglect of an immigration matter in Virginia (where she resided at the time) and failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation, and was directed to complete 12 CLE credits in ethics and professionalism (127 A.D.3d 1405, 4 N.Y.S.3d 925 [3d Dept. 2015]).

On September 15, 2015, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspended respondent from the practice of law for six months for her failure to meet all the required terms of a disciplinary reprimand previously imposed on her in that jurisdiction in connection with the immigration matter that resulted in the Third Department's order of censure.

By order of November 17, 2016, the Third Department imposed a reciprocal six-month suspension based on respondent's September 15, 2015 discipline in Virginia, as well as her failure to comply with the mandate to complete the CLE requirements imposed by the April 2015 order of censure (144 A.D.3d 1387, 40 N.Y.S.3d 805 [3d Dept. 2016]). To date, respondent has not been reinstated and remains suspended in New York.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 90(2) and 486, immediately disbarring respondent without further proceedings for violating the Third Department's November 17, 2016 order of suspension, Judiciary Law § 478, and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.15, by willfully engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

Respondent, while under suspension, continued to hold herself out as an attorney to the court, as well as on the internet via her LinkedIn webpage. Further, she perpetrated a fraud on the court by submitting papers to the court under another attorney's name without his permission. Such conduct warrants immediate disbarment (see Matter of Gill, 3 A.D.3d 109, 770 N.Y.S.2d 71 [1st Dept. 2004]; Matter of Javitz, 100 A.D.2d 288, 473 N.Y.S.2d 797 [1st Dept. 1984]). By failing to respond to this motion, respondent has failed to refute these facts.

Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted to the extent of disbarring respondent from the practice of law, and striking her name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

The Committee's motion is granted to the extent of disbarring respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law §§ 90(2) and 486, and striking her name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

PER CURIAM

All concur.