The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department disbarred an attorney who failed to respond to bar charges
The petition contains 11 charges of professional misconduct, alleging that the respondent engaged in frivolous conduct, conduct that had no reasonable purpose other than to merely harass or maliciously injure another, conduct that disregarded or otherwise advised a client to disregard a standing rule of a tribunal or a ruling of a tribunal made in the course of a proceeding, conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, conduct that was prejudicial to the administration of justice, and conduct that adversely reflected on the respondent’s fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rules 3.1(a), (b)(1) and (2), 3.3(f)(4), 3.4(c), and 8.4(d) and (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). The notice of petition directed the respondent to file his answer to the petition, together with proof of service of the answer, upon the Grievance Committee within 20 days after service upon him of the notice of petition and the petition. To date, the respondent has neither served nor filed an answer to the petition as directed.
A proceeding involving a conviction for contempt in the second degree was dismissed as moot in light of the disbarment.
An earlier action based on allegations of misconduct in federal court
On December 3, 2014, the respondent appeared at the federal courthouse in White Plains, and presented a court-issued AttorneyService Pass which allowed him to bring his cell phone into the building. A standing order of the Southern District (hereinafter the standing order) prohibited the use of cell phones to record events inside the courthouse.
The respondent had an appearance on behalf of the plaintiff creditors in courtroom 164 for a trial in a bankruptcy case, which was before Judge Sean Lane. While waiting for the proceedings to begin, before Judge Lane took the bench, the respondent used his cell phone to photograph an individual in the courtroom who he believed was conspiring with the defendant to hide bankruptcy assets. In addition, he “inadvertently” took video footage in the courtroom until he realized that his cell phone camera was set to the video, rather than the still-photo, setting
A six-month suspension was imposed. (Mike Frisch)