Utah Denies Admission To Suspended Attorney
The Utah Supreme Court denied relief to a former New York attorney seeking bar admission
This matter is before us on a petition for extraordinary relief. Melvin M. Marin, an attorney once licensed to practice in New York, seeks relief in this court by collaterally attacking a New York court’s 1998 order suspending him from the practice of law in that jurisdiction. If we deny his primary request to decline to give full faith and credit to the New York order, Marin alternatively requests a waiver of rules 14-704(a)(7) and 14-704(a)(8) of our bar admission rules, which require attorney applicants to establish that they are in good standing in all jurisdictions where they are currently admitted and that they are not currently subject to lawyer discipline. UTAH SUP. CT. R. PRO. PRAC. 14-704(a)(7), (a)(8). We deny both requests.
New York proceedings
In April 1997, the Committee on Professional Standards brought an attorney disciplinary action against Marin in the New York court, charging him with six violations of New York’s Code of Professional Responsibility. Id. at 997–98; see also Comm. on Pro. Standards v. Marin, No. 1:97-CV-1361, 2017 WL 5515854, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017), aff’d, 764 F. App’x 82 (2d Cir. 2019). Among the violations, Marin was charged with commencing and pursuing a frivolous action and appearing as an attorney of record in New York without maintaining an office in the state. In re Marin, 250 A.D.2d at 997–98.
The matter was removed to federal court and later returned to state court
Back in New York state court, the court considered the parties’ written submissions and heard oral argument. In re Marin, 250 A.D.2d at 998. And in May 1998, the court sustained four of the six disciplinary charges and suspended Marin’s law license for a period of six months. Id.
Marin sought review of the disciplinary decision in the New York Court of Appeals, but his efforts were unsuccessful.4 See In re Marin, 704 N.E.2d 228 (N.Y. 1998), leave to appeal denied, 708 N.E.2d 177 (N.Y. 1999). For reasons not apparent in the record, Marin’s suspension is still in effect today.
In 2018, twenty years after the New York court issued its order of discipline, Marin moved that court for an order vacating, ab initio, its 1998 order suspending him from the practice of law. In re Marin, 158 A.D.3d 889, 889–90 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018), appeal dismissed, 108 N.E.3d 1025 (N.Y. 2018). Marin also requested a statement confirming that he had continually been in good standing as a member of the New York Bar since 1992. Id. at 890. The court denied both requests, and it likewise denied Marin’s request for reconsideration. Id.; In re Marin, 162 A.D.3d 1198, 1199 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018).
Here
He claims the 1998 disciplinary order has frustrated his ability to seek admission to the Utah State Bar and to make a living. He explains, “because the [New York] judges will never lift their suspension . . . , I must have an order . . . that says plainly that the [New York] rulings are not entitled to full faith and credit and are considered void, so I can apply here for admission after the other matters are satisfied like taking the Utah Bar Exam and character & fitness.”
The court
Here, while insisting that he “did nothing wrong” in New York “at any time,” Marin asks us to overlook the New York court’s order disciplining him for professional misconduct. See In re Marin, 250 A.D.2d 997, 997–98 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) (per curiam), appeal dismissed, 704 N.E.2d 228 (N.Y. 1998), leave to appeal denied, 708 N.E.2d 177 (N.Y. 1999). Marin notably has not acknowledged or engaged with our standard for determining whether to waive bar admission rules. That is, Marin has not addressed, much less demonstrated, that the purposes of the rules for which he seeks waiver have been satisfied and that his case is extraordinary. See Kelly, 2017 UT 6, ¶ 1. We thus deny his request to waive rules 14-704(a)(7) and 14-704(a)(8).
CONCLUSION
We deny Marin’s invitation to disregard the New York court’s 1998 order suspending him from the practice of law, and we reject his alternative request for the waiver of two bar admission rules. Accordingly, we deny and dismiss Marin’s petition for extraordinary relief
(Mike Frisch)