A Long Road Back

An attorney disbarred in Florida and New York as a consequence of a federal conviction is not precluded from seeking reinstatement in New York

we note that, unlike respondent’s home jurisdiction of Florida, this state does not have a statute or regulation allowing for the permanent disbarment of an attorney (see generally Matter of Matthews, 187 AD3d at 1484; Matter of Canale, 162 AD3d 1455, 1456 [2018]). As such, there is no actual bar to a disbarred attorney seeking reinstatement, regardless of the nature of the conduct that led to his or her disbarment, so long as he or she can clearly and convincingly meet the requirements of Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.16 (cf. Matter of Cammarano, 169 AD3d 1251, 1251-1252 [2019])

The Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department granted reinstatement notwithstanding Florida’s denial

respondent had been convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of multiple counts of mail fraud, one count of bribery and one count of conspiracy to commit racketeering in connection with a kickback scheme involving a Florida Circuit Court Judge.

…in its order denying his motion for reinstatement, the Supreme Court of Florida noted that respondent had amassed over 13,000 hours of community service in the 18 years preceding his application for reinstatement in that state (see Florida Bd. of Bar Examiners re Castro, 87 So 3d at 703). However, the Court also determined that “no demonstration of rehabilitation would ever suffice to allow [respondent]’s readmission to the legal profession” (id. at 702), a principle that is not dispositive to our inquiry (see Matter of Matthews, 187 AD3d at 1484)

The court accepted his remorse and favorable present character

We also recognize that respondent has dedicated himself to public service in his community. Respondent’s application materials and the testimony adduced at his subcommittee hearing provide numerous accounts of his commitment to various charitable organizations that aid underprivileged families, and he has also dedicated his time to the foster family program in his community, having served both as a foster parent and on foster care review panels ensuring that other foster children are properly cared for.  Further, respondent has committed time to lecturing future members of the bar in his community, as well as current licensed attorneys, about how to avoid the pitfalls that cost him his freedom and his law licenses.

Reinstated

while we have determined that respondent should be reinstated, we cannot ignore his lengthy separation from the practice of law, which now spans over 26 years, notwithstanding his recent work as a paralegal. With that in mind, we believe that it would benefit both respondent and the public to place certain conditions on his return to practice (see Matter of Krouner, 173 AD3d at 1430; Matter of Canale, 162 AD3d at 1456; Matter of Brollesy, 169 AD3d at 1349), and therefore reinstate respondent to the practice of law in accordance with the conditions provided for in this order.

(Mike Frisch)