Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. 5085113 (2023)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court in 2012.  By May 2019 order of this Court, respondent was suspended for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a beginning in 2014 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1756, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 [3d Dept. 2019]).  Having since cured that delinquency, respondent now moves for his reinstatement (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16;  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).  The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposes respondent's motion, alleging that his submitted continuing legal education credits do not meet the requirements of this Court's rules (see Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16[c][5]).

“ ‘An attorney seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and this Court's rules, that he or she has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and that reinstatement would be in the public's interest’ ” (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Andison], 211 A.D.3d 1307, 1308, 179 N.Y.S.3d 498 [3d Dept. 2022], quoting Matter of Edelstein, 150 A.D.3d 1531, 1531, 56 N.Y.S.3d 356 [3d Dept. 2017];  see .Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1317–1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [3d Dept. 2020];  Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a]).  In addition to this substantive showing, an applicant for reinstatement must also satisfy certain threshold procedural requirements.  Where, as here, the attorney seeking reinstatement was suspended for misconduct which relates exclusively to the respondent's failure to comply with the biennial registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a, this Court has established an expedited procedure (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[e]).  In addition, there is no longer a requirement that such attorneys successfully pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as a prerequisite to reinstatement (compare Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]), and, instead, this Court's rules explicitly mandate the completion of certain continuing legal education accreditation as a prerequisite to reinstatement, but only for those respondents who have been actually suspended for a duration of greater than two years (see Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16[c][5];  Matter of Clark, 214 A.D.3d 1250, 1251, 185 N.Y.S.3d 420 [3d Dept. 2023]).  Specifically, the attorney must demonstrate that, within the two years preceding his or her application for reinstatement, he or she completed six credit hours of Skills and/or Law Practice Management, one credit hour of Ethics and Professionalism and either one credit hour of Diversity, Inclusion and Elimination of Bias or one credit hour of Cybersecurity, Privacy and Data Protection (see Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16[c][5]).

While respondent's claimed exemption from this Court's CLE requirements is unavailing (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Pretorius], ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 03829, *1 [3d Dept. 2023]), we agree with respondent that the credits he has actually received in New Jersey meet the CLE requirements of this Court's rules.  Respondent's reinstatement application was filed with this Court on March 27, 2023 and, in the two years preceding same, he completed 4.8 credit hours in the category of Ethics, 4.4 credit hours in the category of Diversity, Inclusion and Elimination of Bias, and 36.7 credit hours in the category of General credits for courses pertaining to topics such as cybersecurity, commercial real estate, employment law and mental health defenses.  These courses generally apply to the practice of law in New York and thus, meet the requirement for his reinstatement.  Further, we have determined that respondent has established, by clear and convincing evidence, his satisfaction of the aforementioned substantive test (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a];  Matter of Clark, 214 A.D.3d at 1252, 185 N.Y.S.3d 420;  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Rainey], 216 A.D.3d 1249, 1250, 186 N.Y.S.3d 867 [3d Dept. 2023]).  Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion.

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.

Per Curiam.

Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concur.