IN RE: ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A. (2021)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2006 and is also admitted in Washington, where she resides and practices as a Federal Public Defender.  Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in New York by May 2019 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 from 2012 onward (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1721, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 [2019];  see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5];  Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4[d]).  Upon curing her registration delinquency in January 2021, respondent has now moved, by application marked returnable on June 7, 2021, for her reinstatement.  The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) has been heard in response to the application.¹

Along with certain procedural requirements, “[a]ll attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he or she has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) he or she has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) it would be in the public's interest to reinstate the attorney to practice in New York” (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1317–1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2020]).  Given the duration of her suspension, respondent has appropriately submitted a duly-sworn form affidavit as is provided for in appendix C to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]).  She has also provided certificates of good standing from all jurisdictions in which she is admitted to the practice of law, including Washington (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] appendix C, ¶ 13), as well as proof of her timely passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]).  Although respondent admittedly failed to file the required affidavit of compliance following the order of suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15[f];  part 1240, appendix C, ¶ 21), we find that the attestations included in her appendix C affidavit have sufficiently cured this defect in this instance (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Lawrence], 193 A.D.3d 1318, 1319, 145 N.Y.S.3d 681 [2021].

As for the balance of respondent's application, we conclude that her submission is sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she has satisfied the above-referenced three-part test.  Respondent has sufficiently demonstrated her compliance with the order of suspension.  As to her character and fitness, respondent's application materials raise no cause for concern, inasmuch as, among other things, she reports no criminal record and she further attests that she has not been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action or governmental investigation since her suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix C, ¶¶ 14, 30, 31).  We additionally conclude that respondent's reinstatement would be in the public interest.  Further, giving due consideration to respondent's otherwise spotless disciplinary history and the fact that the professional misconduct underlying her suspension was not harmful in nature, we also find that no detriment would inure to the public from respondent's reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Giordano], 186 A.D.3d 1827, 1829, 129 N.Y.S.3d 547 [2020];  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Serbinowski], 164 A.D.3d 1049, 1051, 85 N.Y.S.3d 232 [2018]).  We accordingly grant respondent's motion and reinstate her to the practice of law in New York, effective immediately.

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

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Finding no open claims, the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection advises that it does not oppose respondent's reinstatement application.

Per Curiam.

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.