No Suspension For CLE Non-Compliance And False Certification

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department imposed a public censure of an attorney for falsely  certifying compliance with continuing legal education obligations

On May 26, 2023, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) served respondent with a Notice and Petition for Charges, alleging three counts of professional misconduct related to his biennial attorney registration statement. The first and second charges alleged violations of rule 8.4(c) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) based on respondent’s false certification that he (1) completed the required CLE credits for an attorney registration cycle, and (2) that he retained the required certificates for those CLEs. The third charge alleged that respondent violated rule 8.4(h) due to his failure to complete the credits he falsely certified. In his answer, dated May 31, 2023, respondent admitted to all three charges and their underlying allegations. By Unpublished Confidential Order, dated June 14, 2024, this Court sustained all three charges based on respondent’s admissions and documentary evidence. This Court also appointed a Referee to conduct a sanction hearing.

According to the Referee’s report, the evidence demonstrated that “respondent falsely certified that he had completed the requisite [CLE] credits during a registration cycle between 2017 and 2019, and falsely claimed that he possessed proof thereof. Such conduct was in violation of Rule 8.4(c)…” Respondent also did not take any of the mandatory CLEs, which was in violation of rule 8.4(h).

Mitigation

In mitigation, the Referee found that respondent acknowledged his mistakes, did not make excuses for himself, and said that he was “guilty as charged” and ready to “fall on the sword.” Respondent also cooperated with the AGC, has no prior disciplinary history, and has no clients who were impacted by the misconduct. The Referee noted that the disciplinary investigation led respondent to experience “sleepless nights and daily stress.” Respondent reassured the Referee that he improved his recordkeeping and stated that the misconduct would never happen again. He claimed that “any suspension imposed will devastate [my] law practice.”

Sanction

Although the AGC sought a six-month suspension at the conclusion of the sanction hearing, the AGC now requests that this Court confirm the Referee’s report and “sanction the respondent as the Court deems just and proper.” The Referee recommended a public censure.

Here, we also find that a public censure is appropriate. Respondent’s misconduct was tempered by his acknowledgment of guilt, improved recordkeeping, and acceptance of responsibility. Further, respondent has no prior disciplinary history, fully cooperated with the AGC’s investigation, and specified that the misconduct would never happen again. Given these mitigating factors, respondent’s suspension is unwarranted.

(Mike Frisch)