Florida Suspension Draws Reciprocal Sanction

Sanctions imposed in Florida drew a three-year reciprocal suspension by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department

As stated by AGC in its motion, respondent’s misconduct in Florida, as established by the multiple orders of discipline issued against her, implicate multiple violations of that state’s attorney conduct rules (see Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, rules 4-1.1; 4-1.3; 4-1.4 [a], [b]; 4-3.2; 4-8.4 [g] [2]) and would likewise constitute misconduct if committed in this jurisdiction (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.1 [a]; 1.3 [a]; 1.4 [a], [b]; 3.2; 8.4 [d]). Respondent has not responded to AGC’s motion; thus, we deem the defenses enumerated in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters § 1240.13 (b) waived (see Matter of Hankes, 210 AD3d 1282, 1282 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Colby, 156 AD3d 1215, 1215-1216 [3d Dept 2017]). Accordingly, we find the misconduct established, grant AGC’s motion and turn to the sanction to be imposed (see Matter of Renna, 225 AD3d 1055, 1057 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Lynum, 208 AD3d 1449, 1450 [3d Dept 2022]).

In aggravation, AGC cites respondent’s failure to timely report five of the six orders of discipline entered against her in Florida (see Matter of Radshaw, 213 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2023]; Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [d]), as well as the discipline she received from the Board of Immigration Appeals based on her Florida misconduct. AGC further cites respondent’s multiple prior disciplinary offenses, which it argues reflects a pattern of misconduct (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c], [d]), her bad-faith obstruction and lack of cooperation with the Florida disciplinary proceedings, making misrepresentations during the Florida  proceeding (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [e], [f]), and her substantial experience in the practice of law (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [i]). Lastly, Office of Court Administration records indicate that respondent is currently delinquent in her biennial registration obligations for the past two registration periods. Given that respondent has failed to respond to AGC’s motion, she has not provided any mitigating factors to be considered (see Matter of Bailey, 177 AD3d 1079, 1080 [3d Dept 2019]). While we are not obliged to impose the same sanction that was imposed by the foreign tribunal, under the facts presented and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct (see Matter of Durkin, 220 AD3d 1046, 1048 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Hoines, 185 AD3d 1349, 1350 [3d Dept 2020]), we suspend respondent for a period of three years (see Matter of Ambe, 182 AD3d 695, 696-697 [3d Dept 2020]; see also Matter of Maranga, 151 AD3d 31, 32 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Meyers, 108 AD3d 158, 160 [1st Dept 2013])

(Mike Frisch)