A Lot Like Bribery

The New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department found that a federal conspiracy to commit honest services fraud conviction was substantially similar to a state felony, and thus disbarment was automatic

AGC asks this Court to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys based upon his conviction of solicitation of bribes and gratuities (see 18 USC § 666), which it contends is essentially similar to bribe receiving in the third degree, a class D felony in New York (see Penal Law § 200.10). Pursuant to 18 USC § 666 (a) (1) (B), a person is guilty of soliciting a bribe when that person, “being an agent of an organization, or of a State, local, or Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof . . . corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving [anything] of value of $5,000 or more.” By comparison, pursuant to New York law, “[a] public servant is guilty of bribe receiving in the third degree when he or she solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit from another person upon an agreement or understanding that his or her vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant will thereby be influenced” (Penal Law § 200.10). Based on the plain language of the statutes, we find that they are essentially similar for purposes of automatic disbarment insomuch as they both proscribe the same conduct; that is, the solicitation or acceptance of a bribe by a public servant with the understanding that his or her conduct as a public servant will be influenced (see generally Matter of Chambers, 169 AD3d 100, 102 [2019]; Matter of Castro, 216 AD2d 782, 783 [1995]). Consequently, AGC’s motion to strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys is a mere formality that serves only to confirm his disbarment (see Matter of Goncalves, 161 AD3d 1377, 1379 [2018]; Matter of Butcher, 153 AD3d 1127, 1127 [2017]). We therefore grant AGC’s motion and strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to March 13, 2018, the date of the jury verdict (

(Mike Frisch)