From New Hampshire To New York

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department imposed reciprocal disbarment as a consequence of a sanction ordered in New Hampshire

In August 2022, respondent was referred to the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) of the New Hampshire Supreme Court after two checks for filing fees issued from her operating account were dishonored due to insufficient funds. In February 2023, ADO, with respondent’s assent, filed a petition seeking respondent’s summary suspension from the practice of law, based on the misconduct detailed in the petition. In March 2023, ADO and respondent entered into a “Stipulation to Disbarment” (the stipulation), in which respondent admitted that she had engaged in the misconduct charged in the petition, in violation of numerous provisions of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, and conceded that disbarment was the appropriate sanction for such wrongdoing. Based on the stipulation, the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the New Hampshire Supreme Court filed a recommendation that respondent be disbarred. Thereafter, by order dated May 31, 2023, the New Hampshire Supreme Court disbarred respondent.

In the aforementioned May 2023 order, the New Hampshire Supreme Court noted that respondent was being disbarred for the following misconduct, to which she had admitted in the stipulation:

“[Respondent] mishandled client funds in two client matters, as she was out of trust in the amount of $13,831.36 for one client and $5,790.19 for another client. She was dishonest regarding the amounts she held in trust for these clients with third parties who sought to intercede on these clients’ behalf, and could not write checks to these clients for funds due to them without first ‘replenishing’ her IOLTA [client trust account] with personal funds (i.e. commingling).”

The court found no basis to impose a lesser sanction.

With respect to the sanction, this Court generally defers to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction in which the charges were originally brought because the foreign jurisdiction has the greatest interest in fashioning sanctions for the misconduct (see Matter of Milara, 194 AD3d at 111; Matter of Tabacco, 171 AD3d 163 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Blumenthal, 165 AD3d 85 [1st Dept 2018]). Here, disbarment is the appropriate sanction because it is commensurate with the discipline imposed by New Hampshire and is consistent with precedent of this Court imposing that sanction for similar misconduct (see e.g. Matter of Carlos, 192 AD3d 170, 172 [1st Dept 2021]; see also Matter of Karambelas, 203 AD3d 75, 81 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Arnold, 180 AD3d 72, 76 [1st Dept 2019]; Blumenthal, 165 AD3d at 86).

(Mike Frisch)