IN RE: Brett Becker STEIN (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in this state in 2002, but has been admitted to the practice of law in Tennessee since 1963.  By May 2022 order, the Supreme Court of Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility for Disciplinary District X censured respondent, finding that he had failed to adequately supervise a junior attorney's preparation of a habeas corpus petition and an accompanying pro hac vice admission application, and likewise failed to discover that his pro hac vice admission application had been denied the day after it had been filed and to inform the client of same, with the client suffering potential harm (see Tennessee Rules of Prof Conduct rules 1.3, 1.4, 5.1).  Accordingly, AGC seeks the imposition of discipline on respondent as a consequence of his established misconduct in Tennessee (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13;  Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.13).  Despite being notified of AGC's motion, respondent has not submitted a response.

Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(c) permits us to discipline an attorney for the misconduct committed in a foreign jurisdiction.  In defense, the attorney may file an affidavit asserting any of three defenses as provided for in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters § 1240.13(b) (see Matter of Rimer, 238 AD3d 1381, 1382 [3d Dept 2025] ).  Specifically, AGC contends that respondent's violation of Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct would constitute violations of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct, inasmuch as the implicated Tennessee rules are substantially similar, if not identical, to their New York counterparts and that respondent's conduct would constitute misconduct if committed in this state (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.3[a];  1.4, 5.1).  As respondent has failed to supply a response to AGC's motion, despite being noticed of same, he has waived any of the affirmative defenses provided for in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(b) (see e.g. Matter of Singh, 245 AD3d 1061, 1062 [3d Dept 2026] );  thus, we grant AGC's motion and turn to the imposition of a sanction.¹

We are not obligated to impose the same disciplinary sanction issued by the other jurisdiction, but rather we are tasked with imposing a sanction that protects the public, maintains the honor and integrity of the profession, and deters others from committing similar misconduct (see Matter of Laurenzo, 231 AD3d 1236, 1236–1237 [3d Dept 2024] ).  In aggravation, AGC cites respondent's prior disciplinary history in Tennessee (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22[a] ), which includes his April 2008 public censure upon his conditional guilty plea that he failed to challenge the state's case or present evidence on behalf of his client in a juvenile court hearing.  Respondent's misconduct and his resulting 2008 public censure in Tennessee prompted his censure by this Court in August 2008 (54 AD3d 506 [3d Dept 2008] ).  In February 1988, respondent was publicly censured in Tennessee for failing to investigate a client's criminal matter and failed to advise the client regarding the availability of a blood test, which could have proven his innocence.  In addition to his disciplinary history, AGC notes that respondent's misconduct is further aggravated by his failure to report his discipline in Tennessee (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13[d];  Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] [former § 806.19(b) ] );  his biennial registration delinquency for the 2022–2023, 2024–2025 and 2026–2027 biennial periods, which remains uncured and prompted his suspension in this state by September 10, 2026 order of this Court (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, ––– AD3d ––––, ––––, 2026 NY Slip Op 05248 [3d Dept 2026] );  and his failure to appear in this proceeding, which demonstrates his disinterest in his fate as an attorney (see Matter of Laurenzo, 231 AD3d at 1237).  As respondent has not supplied a response to AGC's motion, he has not provided any mitigating factors for our consideration.  Given the totality of the circumstances (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8[b][2] ), we suspend respondent for a term of seven months.

ORDERED that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for seven months, effective immediately, and until further notice of this Court (see generally Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16);  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 himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys and shall duly certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15);  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 him.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Notwithstanding respondent's lack of opposition, the public censure issued in Tennessee does not appear to have been issued following a proceeding in that jurisdiction, such as a hearing (see e.g. Matter of Chu, 250 AD3d 1526, 1529 [3d Dept 2026] ) or on respondent's consent (see e.g. Matter of Couloute, 174 AD3d 1031, 1032 [3d Dept 2019] ).  However, we note that the Board of Professional Responsibility's rules empower it to issue a public censure following its investigation without a hearing or other such mechanism, just as AGC is similarly empowered to admonish an attorney following its own investigation when it concludes, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that the attorney engaged in professional misconduct, but that public discipline is not required (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [d] [1] [v]).

Per Curiam.

Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Corcoran and Ryba, JJ., concur.