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 2007 and is also admitted in California, where she resides and practices law.  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 2015 onward (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1751, 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]).  After curing her registration delinquency in May 2021, respondent has now moved, by application marked returnable on August 30, 2021, for her reinstatement.  The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) advises that it opposes the motion and respondent has since submitted supplemental correspondence addressing AGC's concerns.¹

Initially, we note that respondent has satisfied the procedural requirements for an attorney seeking reinstatement to the practice of law from a suspension of more than six months (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2020]) by, among other things, submitting a sworn affidavit in the proper form set forth in appendix C to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]).  As for the threshold documentation required to be submitted in support of her application, respondent has requested a waiver of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) requirement applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions of more than six months (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a];  see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [D'Alessandro], 169 A.D.3d 1349, 95 N.Y.S.3d 371 [2019]).  As we have noted previously, a reinstatement applicant must demonstrate “good cause” in order to be granted an MPRE waiver, which standard may be satisfied by providing assurances “that additional MPRE testing would be unnecessary under the circumstances” (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [2017]).

Upon review of the extensive documentation submitted by respondent in support of her application, we are persuaded that a waiver of the MPRE requirement is appropriate in this instance (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Ohm], 183 A.D.3d 1221, 1223, 124 N.Y.S.3d 114 [2020];  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Sauer], 178 A.D.3d 1191, 1193, 114 N.Y.S.3d 523 [2019]).  Respondent has submitted proof demonstrating, among other things, her continuing legal employment as a government and public interest attorney and educator, her otherwise blemish-free disciplinary history and her completion of numerous credit hours of continuing legal education devoted to legal ethics.  Under these circumstances, we agree that it is not necessary for respondent to undergo further MPRE testing, and we therefore grant her request for a waiver.

As for the remainder of respondent's application, we find that her submission establishes by clear and convincing evidence that she has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from disciplinary suspension (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 175 A.D.3d 1767, 1768, 108 N.Y.S.3d 556 [2019]).  Specifically, respondent has sufficiently demonstrated her compliance with the order of suspension, as she attests to having never represented any clients in this state, which effectively negates any obligation to contact any client, return client property or return any fees.  Further, we find that respondent has demonstrated the requisite character and fitness for reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Pratt], 186 A.D.3d 965, 129 N.Y.S.3d 538 [2020]).  We additionally conclude that respondent's reinstatement would be in the public interest.  Further, giving due consideration to the limited nature of respondent's misconduct, as well as her otherwise spotless disciplinary history, we find that no detriment would inure to the public from her 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 [Ohm], 183 A.D.3d at 1223, 124 N.Y.S.3d 114).  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.

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