Stain Removal

An attorney who was suspended for 90 days in Massachusetts and reciprocally suspended in New York has been reinstated by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department

In terms of the public interest in respondent’s reinstatement, the subcommittee noted that respondent waited more than 12 years to apply for reinstatement, and that he was motivated to “remove the stain” from his record. However, respondent’s testimony elaborated that, if reinstated, he hopes to assist family members in New York, as well as to complete legal work on behalf of his Massachusetts client, who does business in New York. Respondent affirmatively averred that he will not pursue work in the area of trusts and estates or serve as a trustee in New York and his materials confirm his assertions that he has refrained from any such work, including work as a trustee. Accordingly, we conclude that respondent has sufficiently established the requisite character and fitness to resume the practice of law in this state, as well as the public’s interest in his reinstatement (compare Matter of Chechelnitsky, 194 AD3d 1241, 1242 [3d Dept 2021], with Matter of Edelstein, 150 AD3d 1531, 1532 [3d Dept 2017]). Notwithstanding this conclusion and respondent’s sworn testimony before the subcommittee wherein he indicated that he would refrain from work in the area of trusts and estates, among other things, if reinstated, we find that additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that no detriment will inure to the public as a consequence of his reinstatement; thus, in reinstating respondent, we impose certain conditions on his return to the practice of law as provided for in this order.

(Mike Frisch)