Six Months Is Not Enough
A one year suspension and until further order has been imposed by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department
On September 22, 2022, following a jury trial, respondent was convicted of two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree, three counts of stalking in the fourth degree, and harassment in the first degree. On October 8, 2024, the conviction was affirmed on appeal (People v Perry, 231 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2024]). The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) sought to have those offenses of which respondent had been found guilty to be deemed “serious crimes” within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d). This Court granted the application by unpublished order of November 1, 2023. The Court appointed a Referee to conduct a sanction hearing and issue a report and recommendation as to whether a final order of censure, suspension, or disbarment should be made.
Respondent’s conviction, for which he was sentenced to three years’ probation, stemmed in part from his violating two orders of protection in favor of his former girlfriend and cohabitant through his use of social media to create approximately 17 fake accounts for which he used account names that could easily be mistaken to be social media accounts of his former girlfriend, and used the fake accounts to make it appear that the content of the posts came from his former girlfriend. Respondent also used the accounts to post information about the prosecutor who had handled an earlier criminal case against respondent arising from a domestic violence incident with his former girlfriend. That matter resulted in respondent pleading guilty to disorderly conduct and the issuance of one of the orders of protection he violated. Respondent also posted information to social media about the prosecutor’s mother, who had nothing to do with the case handled by her son. In addition to respondent’s sentence, orders of protection were issued against respondent in favor of respondent’s former girlfriend, the prosecutor, and the prosecutor’s mother.
The Attorney Grievance Commission had agreed to the referee’s proposed six-month suspension
AGC refers the Court to its post-hearing memorandum to the Referee in which it cites case law involving contemptuous and/or harassing misconduct for which the sanction has ranged from public censure to suspensions of three months to one year. AGC points to the seriousness of respondent’s misconduct and “strong evidence of aggravating factors, including his prior offenses, lack of contrition or remorse, the disruptive and dilatory manner in which he conducted himself throughout this proceeding, failure to acknowledge the nature of his wrongdoing, and the harm he inflicted on his victims.” AGC argues that the little mitigating evidence respondent has presented is not compelling and that “respondent’s willful violation of two orders of protection, in addition to his acts of stalking and harassment, establish that he has relinquished the privilege of practicing law.”
The court
While respondent has no prior attorney disciplinary history, a six-month suspension as recommended by the Referee is too lenient given the egregious nature of respondent’s criminal misconduct. Specifically, not only did respondent violate two orders of protection (at least one of which issued as a result of a domestic violence incident) and subject his former girlfriend to a campaign of online harassment through his use of fake social media accounts, but he also used these accounts to post information about the prosecutor and his mother. Additionally, rather than admit to any wrongdoing and express remorse, respondent blames others, including his former girlfriend, for his conviction. Based on the foregoing, this matter more closely aligns with the one-year suspension cases cited above, which is the appropriate sanction here.
(Mike Frisch)