Private Discipline Rejected

The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department found that pubic discipline was appropriate for an attorney’s conviction.

The Special Referee had proposed non-public discipline; the court imposed a public censure.

In view of the evidence adduced, the Grievance Committee’s motion to disaffirm the report of the Special Referee is granted and the respondent’s cross-motion, inter alia, to confirm the Special Referee’s report is denied. We find unpersuasive the respondent’s argument as mitigation that a public discipline should not be imposed for his misconduct because it would affect his current and future employment. Under the totality of the circumstances, including evidence of the respondent’s efforts to remain sober, and this Court’s precedent, the respondent is publicly censured for the unlawful conduct that resulted in his Michigan conviction of operatingwhile visibly impaired.

The offense

the respondent was arrested in Monroe, Michigan, and charged with operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.625(1). This charge was a second offense charge based on the respondent’s 2015 New York conviction of driving while ability impaired, an infraction, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(1). On October 24, 2019, the respondent pleaded guilty to the added charge of operating while visibly impaired, a
misdemeanor, in violation of Michigan Compiled Laws § 257.625(3), and the charge of operating while intoxicated was dismissed. During his plea, the respondent admitted that he had driven while impaired by a controlled substance, namely, Adderall, and that it impaired his driving. The respondent further admitted that he drove “aggressively and erratically,” crossing traffic lines. The respondent was sentenced to the maximum term of incarceration of 93 days and probation for 12 months, a $300 fine was imposed on him, and the vehicle used in the offense was to be immobilized
or forfeited. With other court costs and fees, the respondent was ordered to pay a total sum of $1,870. While he was sentenced to 93 days in jail, the respondent did not actually serve any time in jail as the Michigan probation order allowed him to complete 30 days of community service within six months of probation in lieu of immediate jail.

Late report

At the hearing before the Special Referee, the respondent testified that he was unaware of his duty to report his conviction, and thus, he failed to timely do so. The respondent learned of his duty to report when he was applying to the Michigan Bar.

(Mike Frisch)