IN RE: Michael Bolduc (2014)

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

IN RE: Michael Bolduc, a suspended attorney.  Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, petitioner;  Michael Bolduc, respondent.  (Attorney Registration No. 3008042) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District.  The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Supreme Court in the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department on January 12, 2000.  By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 17, 2012, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based upon his convictions of seven misdemeanors, two of which constituted serious crimes, and the matter was referred to the Honorable Patrick Sweeney, as Special Referee, to hear and report with respect to the issues raised by the petition and any answer thereto.  By the same order, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law based upon his convictions of two serious crimes.  Robert A. Green, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Carolyn Mazzu Genovese of counsel),

2012–02683

Decided: July 23, 2014

RANDALL T. ENG, P.J. REINALDO E. RIVERA PETER B. SKELOS MARK C. DILLON SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.

for petitioner.   McDonough & McDonough, Garden City, N.Y. (Chris McDonough of counsel), for respondent. PER CURIAM.   The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District served the respondent with a verified petition dated January 15, 2013, containing two charges of professional misconduct, to which he admitted.   Charge one alleges that the respondent has been convicted of seven crimes, including two serious crimes within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 691.7 and Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d).  On February 8, 2007, in Vermont District Court, Windham Circuit, the respondent pleaded guilty, by waiver, to resisting arrest (13 VSA § 3017[a][1] ), a misdemeanor in the State of Vermont.   On February 8, 2007, the respondent was sentenced, inter alia, to a $500 fine on the charge of resisting arrest.   On September 19, 2007, in Southampton Town Court, Suffolk County, New York, the respondent pleaded guilty to criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50), a class A misdemeanor.   On September 19, 2007, the respondent was sentenced to probation on the charge of criminal contempt in the second degree.   On August 28, 2008, at Westhampton Beach Justice Court, Suffolk County, the respondent pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3] ), an unclassified misdemeanor.   On August 20, 2008, the respondent was sentenced to, inter alia, a $500 fine on the charge of driving while intoxicated.   On November 29, 2008, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the respondent pleaded guilty to theft of services (Penal Law § 165.15), a class A misdemeanor.   On November 29, 2008, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment (time served) on the charge of theft of services.   On March 5, 2009, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the respondent was resentenced to 30 days imprisonment for his conviction of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle Traffic Law § 1192[2] ), an unclassified misdemeanor, and concurrently sentenced for Violation of Probation (VOP) on his previous conviction of driving while intoxicated.   On March 5, 2009, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the respondent pleaded guilty to criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00), a class A misdemeanor.   On March 5, 2009, the respondent was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment on the charge of criminal mischief in the fourth degree.   On April 10, 2010, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the respondent pleaded guilty to petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), a class A misdemeanor.   On April 10, 2010, the respondent was sentenced, inter alia, to 90 days imprisonment on the charge of petit larceny.   By virtue of any one or more of the foregoing convictions, the respondent engaged in illegal conduct that reflects adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1–102(a)(3) and (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a][3], [5] ) and Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.4(b) and (d).  Charge two alleges that, following his convictions of the foregoing misdemeanors, the respondent failed to file a record of such convictions with the Appellate Division, Second Department, in violation of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(c).  By failing to file a record of any one or more of the foregoing convictions, the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of former Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1–102(a)(5) and (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3[a] [5] and [7] ) and Code of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.4(d) and (h).  Based upon the evidence adduced, including the respondent's admissions, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained both charges.   Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted.   In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, we note that the respondent failed to appear for the hearing, despite multiple adjournments at his request.   Counsel for the respondent represented that his client was out of state, and was financially unable to return to New York. Ostensibly, the respondent was attempting to borrow money, and/or utilize mileage points accrued by a friend.   However, he was unsuccessful.   The Special Referee found, and we agree, that these explanations for the respondent ‘s failure to appear are unavailing, given that he had ample opportunity to appear.   Moreover, despite representations by the respondent's counsel that his client was in a treatment program, and that he had been involved with the Lawyer's Assistance Program prior to leaving New York, the same was not proved.   Indeed, the Special Referee found that no mitigation by way of testimony, affidavit, or letter was received from the respondent, or anyone else on his behalf.   Ultimately, we are troubled by the multiplicity of crimes, several of which are alcohol-related offenses.