Reciprocal Sanction For Immigration Court Disbarment

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department imposed reciprocal disbarment based on the sanction imposed by the Executive Office of immigration Review

In a hearing held before Immigration Judge Munish Sharda, Disciplinary Counsels introduced extensive documentary evidence of respondent’s professional misconduct before the Immigration Court. The evidence included emails respondent had sent to New Jersey Immigration Court staff calling them “children” and “severely troubled mentally ill, racist scumbag pigs,” telling them that they “can go to Hell and . . .pound coal.” Counsel also presented record evidence of respondent’s contumelious and belligerent behavior during immigration proceedings in which respondent, among many other things, called for Judge Mirlande Tadal “to be put out of her misery” and sent an email calling her “an arrogant, condescending, defiant, dishonest person.”

Judge Sharda sustained the four charges brought against respondent, finding that they were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Judge Sharda also found that there was significant aggravation in the form of prior offensive conduct similar to the underlying charges. Specifically, in June 2017, respondent was issued a confidential Warning Letter by EOIR for engaging in contumelious conduct before Immigration Judge Shifra Rubin. Respondent, however, failed to heed this warning and continued his contumelious conduct when he baselessly disparaged Judge Rubin, accusing her of being, among other things, biased and racist. As a result, respondent was issued an informal Admonition in March 2018.

Judge Sharda also found that respondent continued his disrespectful and obnoxious behavior during the disciplinary proceeding. This was evidenced by, among other things, his emails in which he engaged in ad hominem attacks, referring to federal disciplinary counsel as “learning disabled, mentally, ethically challenged” and to EOIR, the BIA, and the DHS as a “filthy, corrupt, terminal Pig Entity,” despite Judge Sharda directing respondent to conduct himself with proper decorum in the proceeding, including in his correspondence.

There was mitigation

Nevertheless, Judge Sharda found some mitigation, which included “an absence of a formal prior disciplinary record,” his 30 years of practice helping “many underrepresented individuals in immigration proceedings,” and “his temporary apolog  and display of remorse to the Elizabeth, NJ Immigration Court staff and initial acknowledgement of wrongdoing upon receipt of the NID.” Judge Sharda ultimately found, however, “that the aggravating factors far outweigh[ed] the mitigating factors” and imposed the sanction of disbarment.

Sanction here

Disbarment is the appropriate sanction because it is commensurate with the discipline imposed by EOIR and is in general accord with precedent involving comparable misconduct…

Respondent’s request for a hearing to present mitigation should be denied since he had ample opportunity to present mitigation at the federal disciplinary hearing but chose not to appear.

(Mike Frisch)