“A Myriad Of Damning Quotes” Omitted

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department declined to increase sanctions imposed in Arizona in a matter involving reciprocal discipline

As a preliminary observation, we note that respondent, as a matter of course throughout the several cases and proceedings at issue, employed highly inflammatory, petty, and unprofessional language in a series of scathing ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel, parties, and the courts. For the sake of brevity, and because the suspensions at issue primarily stem from respondent’s failure to obey mandates of the court and discovery rules, we choose to omit the myriad of damning quotes found in respondent’s filings except for those that are integral to the disciplinary rulings at issue.

The court recounts three discipline matters in Arizona

As to sanction, the grand total of disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona amounts to a six month-and-one-day suspension plus a 30-day suspension, for a total of seven months, plus a reprimand, for which the New York equivalent would be a public censure. 

Reciprocal discipline

Certainly, respondent’s behavior has been atrocious over a long period, and does not present an isolated incident. Nonetheless, this case does not present one of the “rare instances” in which this Court should increase the sanction imposed by the foreign jurisdiction. As AGC notes, respondent was the subject of multiple sanction orders in Arizona. However, the Arizona Supreme Court was aware of respondent’s prior disciplinary history when it imposed the suspension of six months and one day in the Esala matter, and that was overriding a hearing panel’s determination to impose a 90-day suspension. Likewise, although Arizona was aware of respondent’s disciplinary than another suspension. While this Court should not countenance respondent’s behavior, as noted above, New York does not have a greater interest in disciplining respondent for unprofessional behavior toward other members of the bar in Arizona than Arizona does (see Matter of Sondel, 111 AD3d at 178; Matter of Lowell, 14 AD3d at 48).

To be sure, respondent behaved in a contemptuous, belittling, and demeaning manner to a judge and to opposing counsel. But regardless of the appalling nature of respondent’s behavior, this case does not involve misconduct involving client funds or property…There is no allegation that any client was tangibly harmed, not even Client. Rather, the greatest portion of the charges implicate issues of discourtesy and disrespect (albeit undertaken over many years). Although respondent briefly practiced law while suspended, Arizona imposed a reprimand for that conduct.

The decision in the Arizona 90-day suspension matter is linked here. (Mike Frisch)