Consequential Tears

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed an 18-month suspension for misconduct in a bankruptcy matter

Tear Drops of Elegance, Inc. (hereinafter the debtor), was the lessee of certain  commercial property where it allegedly operated a beauty salon. The debtor’s principal was Gilda Sophia Cruz. The debtor’s landlord commenced eviction proceedings against the debtor. The respondent appeared as counsel for both the debtor and Cruz in three bankruptcy cases in the Bankruptcy Court in an attempt to delay the eviction. According to the District Court order, in approximately August 2018, the respondent “created” a motion for a temporary restraining order (hereinafter the fabricated motion), along with an order on which she forged the signature of the Honorable Cecelia G. Morris, Chief Bankruptcy Judge of the Bankruptcy Court (hereinafter the forged order). The forgery made it appear as though Chief Judge Morris enjoined the debtor’s eviction in state court. The respondent sent the fabricated motion to Cruz by email.

The forgery was discovered by the debtor’s counsel in another matter. The Respondent admitted the misconduct and was suspended f or two years by the District Court.

Sanction

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we note the factors that the respondent has offered in mitigation. Her misconduct was not motivated by, and did not result in, financial gain. She admittedly gave the forged order to her client to calm the client’s anxiety, but did not submit it to any court or other party. The respondent admitted her wrongdoing, expressed remorse, voluntarily suspended her law practice, and went to work as a paralegal for an attorneywho wrote in support of her character. We also note the confluence of certain extraordinary
circumstances in the respondent’s personal life, occurring at the time of her misconduct, and her lack of a disciplinary history in New York. Notwithstanding the mitigation advanced, we find that the respondent’s forgery of a judge’s signature constitutes serious professional misconduct. It has been aptly described as “go[ing] to the heart of the judicial system” (Matter of Henning, 32 AD3d 161, 164).

We conclude that reciprocal discipline is warranted based on the findings of the District Court, and, under the particular and unique circumstances of this case, we conclude that an 18-month suspension is appropriate.