Rectification Of Name Leads To Reinstatement

The New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department has reinstated a number of attorneys suspended in May 2019 for failure to comply with annual registration requirements.

One of the orders is of some general interest in that the Attorney Grievance Commission expressed concerns but not opposition to reinstatement

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2012 and currently practices with a firm in Seattle, Washington. She was suspended from the practice of law by May 2019 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her failure to comply with her attorney registration obligations from 2014 onward (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1760 [2019]). She now applies for her reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) advises that it defers to this Court’s discretion on the application, but raises concerns about the name that respondent has been practicing under in Washington. Respondent has submitted documents in an attempt to address the concerns of AGC.

The concern

AGC has pointed out that its investigation into whether respondent’s reinstatement raised any concerns uncovered that she has been practicing in Washington under a different name than that which she provided when she was admitted in this state and under which she remains registered. We take this opportunity to remind the bar that an attorney’s disciplinary history in this state is public information that should be readily accessible to those that might seek to retain the attorney’s services (see Judiciary Law § 468 [2]). Further, by practicing under a different name than that which he or she was admitted, an attorney impedes the public’s ability to report potential misconduct. It is for these reasons that practicing under a name that differs from the attorney’s admitted name constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and may warrant discipline in this state (see Matter of Greene, 34 AD2d 64, 65 [1970]; see generally Rules of the Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] §§ 118.1 [e], [f], [h]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]).

However, we note that respondent has taken steps to rectify the misrepresentation on her firm’s website, and it does not appear that her use of a name other than her admitted name was done with an intent to conceal her suspension in this state or avoid other discipline. Further, respondent attests that she has not been the subject of any disciplinary or criminal proceedings since the order of suspension, and no other concerns are apparent from the application on its face (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] appendix D, ¶¶ 10, 14). We therefore do not find that respondent’s actions foreclose her reinstatement, and ultimately conclude that she has met her burden and demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she possesses the requisite character and fitness for reinstatement.

(Mike Frisch)