A “Disagreement”

A Connecticut sanction was the basis of reciprocal discipline by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department

After a 2019 random audit of respondent’s trust account revealed certain deficiencies, Connecticut disciplinary authorities requested resolution of same. When respondent failed to fully cooperate, the Superior Court of Connecticut for the Judicial District of New Haven reprimanded respondent by February 2020 order. Respondent was thereafter found in contempt of the February 2020 order by December 2020 order of Superior Court. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) now therefore moves, by order to show cause marked returnable July 8, 2024, to impose discipline upon respondent as a consequence of his Connecticut misconduct. Respondent has been heard in response, requesting that this Court not take further action, and AGC has been heard in reply.

Sanction

our attention is directed to the relevant aggravating factors, including respondent’s failure to report his Connecticut reprimand and contempt finding to this Court (see Matter of Radshaw, 213 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Haar, 212 AD3d 1072, 1074 [3d Dept 2023]), as well as his substantial experience in law and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct – as exemplified by his “disagreement” with Superior Court’s contempt findings (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [g], [i]). However, it is also noted that this misconduct occurred approximately five years ago and is therefore somewhat remote in time (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [m]). Accordingly, in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, we censure respondent for his misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)