IN RE: E. Peter Shin (2011)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: E. Peter Shin, admitted as Eungnam Peter Shin, an attorney and counselor-at-law.  Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner;  E. Peter Shin, respondent.  (Attorney Registration No. 2831386) Application by the petitioner, Grievance Committee of the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3, to impose discipline on the respondent based upon disciplinary action taken against him by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on August 20, 1997, under the name Eungnam Peter Shin. Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Susan Korenberg of counsel),

2009-04619

Decided: February 22, 2011

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.

for petitioner. Richard E. Grayson, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent. By decision and order on motion dated November 9, 2009, this Court held the Grievance Committee's application in abeyance pending a hearing upon the respondent's demand, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.3(d), and appointed the Hon. Jerome M. Becker as Special Referee to hear and report, together with his findings, with respect to the findings of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York, and the respondent's defenses to the imposition of reciprocal discipline.   Pursuant to that order, a hearing was conducted before Special Referee Becker on March 2, 2010.   The Special Referee submitted a report, dated June 14, 2010, in which he emphasized the mitigating circumstances and expressed strong sympathy for the respondent but, nevertheless, found no evidence to support the defenses to the imposition of reciprocal discipline. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report rejecting the defenses and to impose reciprocal discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.   The respondent cross-moves to disaffirm in part and confirm in part the report of the Special Referee and to dismiss the proceeding or, in the event the Court affirms any of the findings, to refer the matter back to the Grievance Committee for whatever action it deems appropriate or, should the Court deem public discipline to be warranted, to limit any discipline imposed to a public censure.   By virtue of the respondent's admissions and his action in freely entering into the Stipulation and Order to resolve the trustee's investigation into his alleged misconduct, the Special Referee found no credible evidence to support the respondent's defenses to the imposition of reciprocal discipline upon him in New York. Despite his conclusion, the Special Referee expressed great compassion for the respondent.   In view of the poor judgment exercised by the respondent in not having his client present as required when his application was processed over the Internet and his failure to sustain the defenses to the imposition of reciprocal discipline, the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted and its application to impose reciprocal discipline is granted.   The respondent's cross motion is granted to the extent that the respondent is publicly censured based on the discipline imposed by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York.