Immigration Practice Draws Censure

A censure has been imposed by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2006 and operates an immigration law practice – on the strength of his New York licensure – in San Francisco, California, where he is not admitted. By notice of petition and petition of charges, petitioner has alleged that respondent has engaged in, among other misconduct, a conflict of interest, wherein he employed an immigration client at his own law firm, and illegal conduct that adversely reflects on respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer, including failing to follow California labor law and federal wage and tax law in his employment of the client. Following an adjournment upon respondent’s request, respondent joined issue by verified answer, and petitioner filed its statement of disputed/undisputed fact. The parties have now jointly moved to impose discipline upon respondent by consent

Consent disposition accepted

Given the totality of the circumstances, and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession, and to deter others from committing similar misconduct (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]), we grant the parties’ motion and censure respondent (see Matter of Lauletta, 167 AD3d 1225, 1226 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of Wilkins, 70 AD3d 1119, 1119-1120 [3d Dept 2010]). In issuing this sanction, however, we remind respondent of his obligations to the law, the legal profession and his clients, further noting that, while he asserts that the misconduct at bar occurred within a limited period of time, it has nonetheless graduated to public discipline, and his disciplinary history may aggravate any future reoccurrences of misconduct.

(Mike Frisch)