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 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 2012 onward (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1719, 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 June 2019, respondent now moves for her reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a];  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16[a]) and, in succession, for an order granting her leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22).  The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department advises that it defers to our discretion as to the disposition of respondent's motion.¹

At the outset, it is noted that respondent seeks to avail herself of an expedited procedure approved by this Court wherein she seeks her reinstatement to the practice of law in this state and contemporaneously requests leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons (see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Thurston], 186 A.D.3d 963, 129 N.Y.S.3d 541 [2020];  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Menar], 185 A.D.3d 1200, 127 N.Y.S.3d 605 [2020]).  Turning first to the reinstatement issue, we find that respondent has satisfied the threshold requirement of submission of a sworn affidavit in the proper form provided for in appendix C of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, as is required for all attorneys suspended for longer than six months.  Respondent has also supplied proof demonstrating her successful completion of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) within one year prior to the filing of her application (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]).

Additionally, our review confirms that respondent's submission establishes by clear and convincing evidence that she has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions in this state (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Pastor], 194 A.D.3d 1307, 1309, 147 N.Y.S.3d 256 [2021];  Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Thompson], 185 A.D.3d 1379, 1381, 128 N.Y.S.3d 689 [2020];  see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a]).  Specifically, respondent has sufficiently established her compliance with the order of suspension, as she attests to not representing any clients in this state during the period of her suspension.  We also 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]).  As for the last prong of the applicable test, given respondent's application submissions and the nature of her misconduct, which is not particularly egregious (see generally Matter of Sklar, 186 A.D.3d 1773, 1775, 130 N.Y.S.3d 859 [2020]), we find that respondent's reinstatement and ability to resign from the New York bar with an otherwise clean disciplinary history would be in the public interest (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [D'Alessandro], 177 A.D.3d 1243, 1245, 114 N.Y.S.3d 512 [2019]).  Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion in its entirety, reinstate her to the practice of law and immediately grant her application for leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons.

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 in the State of New York;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent's application for leave to resign is simultaneously granted and her nondisciplinary resignation is accepted;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent's name is hereby stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court (see generally Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22[b]);  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another;  and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to her.

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, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.