False CLE Certifications Draw Two-Month Suspension

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department accepted a  joint recommendation of a two-month suspension of an experienced attorney

Respondent’s alleged misconduct occurred on two instances. First, on September 6, 2019, respondent renewed his attorney registration with the OCA and certified compliance with the CLE required of him as an experienced attorney, reporting that he completed at least 4 credits in Ethics and Professionalism and 22 other credits, for a total of 26 credits. In 2020, the New York Unified Court System’s Internal Audit Services audited respondent for compliance with the CLE requirements for the 2019-2020 attorney registration cycle. In an April 3, 2020, cover letter to respondent’s Audit Response Form (the Form), he admitted he had falsely certified compliance with the CLE credit requirements when he renewed his attorney registration and that he had not actually taken any of the required CLE hours during the 2019-2020 reporting period. He also certified that he had completed 24 CLE credits, but only between March 16-April 1, 2020, under a retroactive extension he had applied for, several months after the 2019-2020 reporting period had concluded. After Internal Audit Services completed its findings, respondent provided an Answer dated August 23, 2021, in which he admitted he falsely certified that he had complied with his CLE requirements for the 2019-2020 reporting cycle on his biennial attorney registration form.

Second, on October 22, 2021, respondent renewed his attorney registration with OCA for the 2021-2022 reporting period. There, he again certified he earned 26.5 credits that period to fulfill his CLE requirement but produced only two CLE certificates covering 2.5 of the alleged 26.5 credit hours. Respondent then requested and received another retroactive extension to complete his CLE credits for the 2021-2022 CLE reporting period on October 24, 2022, completing them by December 2022.

Mitigation

Respondent expressed considerable remorse, acknowledged his misconduct immediately and cooperated fully with Internal Audit Services and the AGC, completed the required CLEs almost immediately after renewing his registration, did not commit any misconduct involving his representation of clients, and was not motivated by any direct desire for personal profit. He has practiced for 34 otherwise-untarnished years in New York and has never been the subject of a complaint to the AGC. He has shown compassion in his personal life, having taken in his nieces after they were abused by their own parents. Three other attorneys, each of whom had known defendant at least 20 years, submitted letters attesting to respondent’s good professional and moral character, which are further buttressed by at least three pro bono cases he has handled for an indigent mother.

(Mike Frisch)