Reciprocal Censure For Violations In Pro Hac Vice Motion

An attorney who had accepted a censure in Montana for misconduct in connection with a motion for pro hac vice admission to a Montana federal court was reciprocally disciplined by the New York appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department. The New York court rejected a variety of challenges to the imposition of the identical sanction:

The respondent’s argument is that none of these charges would beworthy of the imposition of discipline in New York. In his view, hisadmitted violations were ministerial and technical and would notwarrant punishment if charged in New York.

Based upon the evidence adduced, the defenses advanced by therespondent are without merit. The respondent was not deprived of dueprocess in the Montana proceeding in which he was represented by ablecounsel and had ample opportunity to be heard and to present evidencein his own defense. He participated in the investigation and was fullyapprised of the ramifications of his stipulation.

Nor was there such an infirmity of proof establishing themisconduct as to give rise to a clear conviction that this Court,consistent with its duties, could not accept the findings of theMontana court as final. The terms of the Tendered Conditional Admissionand Affidavit of Consent are clear. Although he was not yet an admittedattorney in Montana, the respondent was an experienced New Yorkattorney who could not persuasively argue that he was ignorant of theimportance of that writing. Notwithstanding the respondent’scategorization of his violations as ministerial and technical, henevertheless made material misrepresentations to a court of law, evenif by omission.

The attorney testified in the New York proceeding that he had accepted the Montana sanction by stipulation because his lawyer had advised him that he would “never…do better” if he contested the charges. (Mike Frisch)