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 2005 and last listed a business address in Virginia. Respondent was suspended from practice by September 2024 order of this Court, however, for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with his attorney registration obligations beginning in 2020 (230 AD3d 1498, 1504 [3d Dept 2024]). In February 2025, respondent moved this Court for reinstatement and leave to thereafter resign. In those motion papers, however, respondent disclosed for the first time that, in July 2010, he had been both suspended for one year, with such suspension deferred, and publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court of New Mexico for misconduct that included the unauthorized practice of law and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation (148 NM 732 [2010]). Respondent’s disclosure likewise revealed the existence of similar discipline imposed in other jurisdictions as a consequence of his New Mexico misconduct, including sanctions imposed by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) accordingly now moves to impose discipline on respondent as a consequence of his New Mexico misconduct, and respondent submitted his opposition, wherein he also sought, in part, the withdrawal of his motion for reinstatement and for leave to resign for non-disciplinary reasons, which withdrawal request was granted. AGC was heard in reply to respondent’s opposition to its motion and respondent, citing misstatements in AGC’s papers, has submitted a surreply.

Respondent’s discipline in New Mexico arose out of a series of events concerning the estate of a decedent benefactor who had been the founder of two organizations in New Mexico (see 148 NM at 736). Respondent solicited the benefactor’s sister to pursue claims against the estate’s personal representative, alleging that the personal representative had mishandled the estate (id.). While the sister ultimately declined respondent’s representation, respondent was not licensed to practice law in New Mexico at the time he communicated with the sister; although he was licensed to practice law in Virginia, he was on an inactive status that did not permit him to practice law (id.). Respondent thereafter met with the personal representative, whom he threatened with legal action, including the representation that respondent had secured claimants who were willing to sue the personal representative for his purported mishandling of the estate (id.). Respondent later sent the personal representative emails offering to settle the matter on behalf of unnamed claimants and further indicated that respondent had, in good faith, presented to the personal representative the claims of at least one client (id.). Later, respondent wrote to the New Mexico Attorney General, asking that an investigation and legal action be taken as to the board members of the decedent’s organizations and, in support of his request, respondent included the unsigned affidavit of an individual. While a statement at the top of the affidavit indicated that the individual had not reviewed the affidavit, respondent represented in his correspondence that the affidavit contained a summary of statements that had been made to him (id.). It was later revealed, however, that the individual never discussed with respondent his intention to attach the affidavit to the correspondence to the Attorney General, and that the affidavit contained numerous statements that the individual either did not make or set forth information of which she had no knowledge (id. at 736-737).

Reciprocal sanction

“While this Court may consider the sanction imposed by a foreign jurisdiction, we are not obliged to impose that same sanction” (Matter of Hediger, 230 AD3d 847, 850 [3d Dept 2024] [citations omitted]). On this point, we note that a portion of the sanction respondent received in New Mexico – a stayed suspension – is not an authorized form of discipline in this jurisdiction (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.2 [b], [c], [g], [k]). In aggravation, AGC cites, among other things, respondent’s failure to timely disclose the imposition of discipline in New Mexico and the discipline incurred in other jurisdictions as a consequence of same (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [d]; see also Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] former § 806.19) and that respondent’s response fails to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [g]). In mitigation, respondent notes, among other factors, that the misconduct in New Mexico did not result from a client complaint or involve any injury to a client; that the Virginia State Bar declined to impose discipline upon him following his New Mexico misconduct; and that he demonstrates good character and reputation (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [g]). Based on all of the facts and circumstances, we censure respondent (see Matter of Winograd, 184 AD3d 1073, 1075 [3d Dept 2020]; see also Matter of Aviles, 152 AD3d 27, 30-31 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Block, 116 AD3d 163, 164-166 [1st Dept 2014]).

(Mike Frisch)