IN RE: Jay A. Sanchez (2026)

submitted a response, the Second Circuit referred the matter to the Second Circuit Committee on Admissions and Grievances (hereinafter the Committee) for investigation and for preparation of a report and recommendation addressing disciplinary action against the respondent, if any.  On February 9, 2023, a panel of the Committee held a hearing and thereafter issued an undated report and recommendation.  In addition to examining the misconduct alleged, the Committee examined the respondent's conduct in a separate matter postdating the Second Circuit's referral order (see Beter v. Murdoch, 771 Fed Appx 62 [2d Cir] ).  In Beter, the Second Circuit concluded that the respondent's appeal from the dismissal of an action was “patently frivolous” and ordered the respondent to show cause why he should not be sanctioned (id. at 63).  Finding that the respondent failed to show cause, the Second Circuit subsequently directed the respondent to pay $25,000 in damages and costs and referred him once more to the Grievance Panel.  Ultimately, the Committee found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent's failure to attend the Cardroom oral argument and his briefing in the four matters cited in the February 2019 order and in the Beter matter amounted to serious misconduct warranting discipline.  The Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the respondent's candor, the absence of any dishonest or selfish motive, and the respondent's remorse as the primary mitigating factors.  But the Committee did not find those mitigating factors persuasive.  The Committee noted that the respondent attributed his filing inadequacies to his relative lack of training and experience in litigation, but the Committee observed that the respondent graduated from Harvard Law School in 1992, received training at two leading law firms, and, by his own account, began practicing litigation in 2004.  Thus, the Committee concluded that “[t]o the extent that [the respondent's] experience is relevant, it is an aggravating, rather than a mitigating factor.”  The Committee recommended a private reprimand as a sanction given, inter alia, the apparent sincerity of the respondent, the absence of bad faith, and the sanctions already imposed on the respondent, including the $25,000 sanction levied in the Beter matter.  Thereafter, in response to an inquiry from the Grievance Panel's counsel, the respondent

submitted a declaration dated June 16, 2024, in which, inter alia, he disclosed that he had not paid the $25,000 Beter sanction, discussed how his moving to Texas had diminished his income, and requested that the Second Circuit provide a payment plan for the sanction.

The Second Circuit Disciplinary Proceeding

The respondent was admitted to the Second Circuit bar in 2012, which admission expired in 2022.  By order dated February 21, 2019 (hereinafter the February 2019 order), the Grievance Panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (hereinafter the Grievance Panel) ordered the respondent to show cause, in a detailed declaration, why disciplinary or other corrective measures should not be imposed upon him, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 46(b) and (c), and Second Circuit Local Rule 46.2.

In the February 2019 order, the Grievance Panel cited several specific concerns regarding the respondent's conduct.  First, the respondent failed to attend (or arrange for substitute counsel to attend) a scheduled oral argument during his representation of the appellant in United States v. Cardroom Intl., LLC (2d Cir, No. 17–2028).  Second, on several occasions, the respondent's filings in the Second Circuit and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (hereinafter the SDNY) contained statements that were found to be irrelevant and/or inflammatory.  In one matter cited by the Grievance Panel, the Second Circuit found that the respondent had brought a “patently frivolous” appeal, filed a brief that was “plainly irrelevant, absurd, and/or scurrilous,” and had violated the Second Circuit's rule regarding the confidentiality of mediation communications (Cortes v. 21st Century Fox Am., Inc., 751 Fed Appx 69, 73–74 [2d Cir] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  The Grievance Panel noted additionally that the respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his conduct in the Cortes case (see id. at 74).  The Grievance Panel also cited the Second Circuit's criticism of the respondent's briefing in another matter, where the Second Circuit affirmed the SDNY's sanctioning of the respondent for $1,000 for filing an improperly pleaded amended complaint containing irrelevant statements and “wild speculation” (Charles v. Levitt, 2016 WL 3982514, *7, 2016 U.S. Dist LEXIS 95725, *21 [SD NY, No. 15 Civ. 9334(PAE), 15 Civ. 9758(PAE) ], affd 716 Fed Appx 18 [2d Cir] ).  When the respondent disputed the sanctions before the Second Circuit, the Second Circuit found his arguments to be “confusing at best” (Charles v. Levitt, 716 Fed Appx at 23).  In addition, the Grievance Panel cited a matter in which the SDNY found that the respondent filed an opposition to motions to dismiss that made “no attempt to respond to any of defendants' legal arguments,” thereby abandoning his client's claims (Sanchez v. City of New York, 2017 WL 3381892, *2, 2017 U.S. Dist LEXIS 123557, *4 [SD NY, No. 15–cv–9940 (PKC) ], affd, 736 Fed Appx 288 [2d Cir] ).  Finally, the Grievance Panel cited a matter in which the SDNY characterized an action that the respondent had initiated as frivolous, since it raised claims that were clearly barred (see Chery v. Nationstar Mtge. LLC, 2018 WL 3708664, 2018 U.S. Dist LEXIS 130786 [SD NY, No. 18–cv–240 (PAC) ] ).  While the SDNY did not find that the respondent had acted in bad faith, it warned of the possibility of sanctions if he engaged in similar conduct in future cases (see id.).

In light of the cited conduct, the Grievance Panel ordered the respondent to show cause why disciplinary or other corrective measures should not be imposed.  It also required, inter alia, that the respondent provide an explanation for the conduct described in the February 2019 order, including a discussion of whether a client, or any other person, was prejudiced in any way.  After the respondent

In the summary order, the Second Circuit publicly reprimanded the respondent for engaging in conduct unbecoming of a member of the Second Circuit's bar.  In rejecting the Committee's recommendation of a private reprimand and opting instead for a public reprimand, the Second Circuit emphasized that the respondent had failed to inform the Committee that he had not paid the $25,000 sanction levied against him in the Beter matter and that the nonpayment belied the severity of the financial sanction that the Committee had found to be a mitigating factor.  The Second Circuit also noted that the respondent was obligated to inform the Beter panel of any inability to pay the $25,000 sanction but failed do so, evincing a lack of candor that the Second Circuit found to be a “significant aggravating factor.”  The Second Circuit stated that “the serious nature of [the respondent's] misconduct, and the public's strong interest in disciplinary matters, lead [it] to conclude that a public reprimand is warranted.”

This Court and the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District have no record of being notified by the respondent of the subject order of discipline in the Second Circuit within 30 days after such discipline was imposed, as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d).

New York Proceeding

By order to show cause dated November 19, 2024, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed upon him pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 based on the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed upon him by the Second Circuit in the summary order.  The respondent submits affirmations dated December 31, 2024, and January 3, 2025, in which he, inter alia, apologizes for his failure to inform the Court of the summary order, an obligation of which he claims he was unaware.  Additionally, the respondent expresses remorse for his conduct, emphasizes his lack of bad faith, and expresses his initial belief that the $25,000 Beter sanction was not a monetary sanction but an order to pay costs that he believed opposing counsel was not pursuing.

The Grievance Committee submits an affirmation in response to the Court's order to show cause in which it, inter alia, takes no position as to appropriate discipline but notes that the respondent failed to assert any of the enumerated defenses to the imposition of discipline set forth in 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b), notes further that the respondent's misconduct was not isolated, and calls attention to the respondent's continuing failure to pay the $25,000 sanction levied in the Beter matter.

Findings and Conclusion

Based on the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by Second Circuit in the summary order, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted.  Regarding the sanction, this Court has found that:

“[i]n reciprocal proceedings, we generally accord significant weight to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction where the misconduct occurred because the foreign jurisdiction has the greatest interest in fashioning sanctions for misconduct perpetrated therein.  Therefore, when the sanction prescribed by the foreign jurisdiction is not inconsistent with the sanction for similar misconduct in this jurisdiction, the Court should impose the same sanction” (Matter of Megaro, 215 AD3d 67, 84 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Therefore, we conclude that the respondent should be publicly censured.

LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and WAN, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, the respondent, Jay A. Sanchez, also known as Jay A. Sanchez–Dorta, admitted as Jay Anthony Sanchez, is publicly censured for his professional misconduct.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court