Finding Andrew

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department disbarred an attorney based on findings of a number of diverse violations

In February 2021, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) filed a Petition of Charges alleging that respondent: failed to properly supervise a subordinate attorney; falsely notarized a client’s affidavit without the client being present before him; falsely informed a client, who was in Korea, that it was illegal in the United States for the client to record their telephone conversation and that if the former client came back to the U.S., respondent would report him to a prosecutor; and practiced law under the name of “Andrew Park,” which is not the name under which he was admitted. The AGC and respondent then moved jointly for discipline by consent under the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8 (a)(5) and requested that respondent be publicly censured.

By unpublished order dated September 29, 2021, this Court denied the parties’ joint motion for discipline by consent and directed the parties to proceed in accordance with 22 NYCRR 1240.8 (a)(5)(iv). By November 4, 2021 answer, respondent admitted some of the factual allegations but denied the charges. In or about December 2021, the parties filed their respective statements of disputed and undisputed facts pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8 (a)(2).

After a hearing on the allegations

Here, the AGC has met its burden as the Referee’s misconduct findings are fully supported by the record. Respondent’s attempted solicitation of his associate Steve Park to falsely represent to the AGC that it was Park who notarized the client affidavit outside of the client’s presence in exchange for increasing Park’s annual salary from $70,000 to $250,000, and, if Park were suspended, allowing him to continue to secretly practice law for respondent’s firm while purportedly employed by one of respondent’s car wash businesses, warrants disbarment. Respondent’s additional misconduct, namely, making a baseless threat of arrest against a client if he entered the U.S. and his practicing law under a misleading name notwithstanding the AGC’s 2015 warning to cease doing so, as well as his three prior admonitions, further demonstrate that he is unfit to continue in the practice of law.

We find that the sanction of disbarment is warranted as respondent’s conduct demonstrates a complete disregard for his legal and ethical responsibilities.

What’s in a name

Following a sua sponte investigation, and by letter dated October 29, 2015, the 7 AGC informed respondent that it harbored concern that he was practicing law “under the name ‘Law Offices of Andrew Park, P.C.’” but “according to the records of the Office of Court Administration, [respondent was] admitted to the practice of law as ‘Inho A. Park.’” The AGC dismissed the sua sponte matter with guidance pursuant to section 605.6(e)(2) of the Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR), advised respondent to “pay careful consideration to th[e] dismissal,” directed respondent’s attention to RPC rule 7.5(b), and advised respondent that he was expected to “amend the name of [his] law practice so that it comports with the name under which [he was] admitted.”

Notwithstanding the AGC’s directive, respondent indicated that he did not research RPC rule 7.5(b), continued to register with OCA under the name of “Inho A. Park” and practiced under the name “Andrew Park.” In 2017 respondent changed his name with OCA to reflect “Inho Andrew Park” so there would be “less misleading information.” However, in his 2019/2020 OCA registration respondent returned his name back to “Inho A. Park” in the OCA database and Song testified that when she made her appearance in court, it was for “Andrew Park P.C.” or “Law Offices of Andrew Park, P.C.” Respondent agreed with Song’s testimony and conceded that “if someone was looking for him and searched for Andrew Park in the OCA registration website they would not find him since he is registered under another name.”

(Mike Frisch)