Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard in New York

2025In mitigation, respondent has expressed remorse for his actions — including his failure to report the 2019 public reprimand ( see Matter of Hoines , 185 AD3d 1349, 1350 [3d Dept 2020]; see also ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [l]) — and has noted his compliance with all disciplinary proceedings initiated against him ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [e]).

2025In mitigation, respondent has expressed remorse for his actions — including his failure to report the 2019 public reprimand ( see Matter of Hoines , 185 AD3d 1349, 1350 [3d Dept 2020]; see also ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [l]) — and has noted his compliance with all disciplinary proceedings initiated against him ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [e]).

2025In aggravation of respondent's conduct, we note that his disciplinary history ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [b]) includes a reprimand by the Connecticut Grievance Committee in 2007 for failing to communicate with a client and to provide a written retainer agreement ( see Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct rules 1.4 [a]; 1.5 [b]), as well as a sanction with conditions issued by the Connecticut Grievance Committee for various violations of escrow record-keeping requirements, among other misconduct ( see Connecticut Practice Book §§ 2-27 [c]; 2-28 [h]; Con

2024Overall, such a history demonstrates a pattern of disregard for his clients and the Rules of Professional Conduct ( see Matter of Johnson , 182 AD3d at 900 ; ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [c]).

2026Accordingly, based on the totality of the circumstances, and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession or deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, we suspend respondent for a period of four months ( see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]; see also Matter of Durkin , 220 AD3d 1046, 1048 [3d Dept 2023]).

2026Accordingly, based on the totality of the circumstances, and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession or deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, we suspend respondent for a period of four months ( see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]; see also Matter of Durkin , 220 AD3d 1046, 1048 [3d Dept 2023]).

2026We have generally imposed a censure in cases involving negligent representation — including in the criminal context — after consideration of the relevant mitigating evidence (<i>see Matter of Cruikshank</i>, 246 AD3d 1215 , 1218 [3d Dept 2026]; <i>Matter of D'Amico</i>, 166 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [3d Dept 2018]; <i>Matter of Shaw</i>, 137 AD3d 19, 20-21 [1st Dept 2016<span>[*2]</span>]; <i>see also Matter of Hoover</i>,<i></i> 196 AD3d 994, 995-996 [3d Dept 2021]; <i>compare Matter of Swayze</i>, 230 AD3d 906 , 907 [3d Dept 2024];<i> Matter of Ezeala</i>, 163 AD3d 1348 , 1349 [3d Dept 2018]).</p> <p

2021Finally, we have considered the precedent in this state for similar misconduct that also presents similar factors in mitigation ( see Matter of D'Amico , 166 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [2018]; Matter of Shaw , 137 AD3d 19, 20-21 [2016]; see also Matter of Leite-Young , 177 AD3d 1240 , 1241-1242 [2019]).

2024We further find that the circumstances warrant this suspension [*4]be effective nunc pro tunc to May 2, 2023 — the date of his New Jersey suspension order ( see Matter of Freeman , 190 AD3d 1251, 1252 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Couloute , 174 AD3d 1031 , 1033 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Chechelnitsky , 92 AD3d at 1453).

2024Further, although respondent was previously suspended by this Court as a consequence of his [*3]attorney registration delinquencies, we note that this was approximately 10 years ago and sufficiently remote in time ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [m]).Given these circumstances, and noting that respondent has been reinstated to good standing in his home jurisdiction, we suspend respondent for 30 days, nunc pro tunc to the effective date of the foreign suspension order ( see Matter of Chechelnitsky , 192 AD3d at 1454 ; Matter of Freeman , 190 AD3d 1251, 1252 [3d De

2023While respondent notes, as a mitigating factor, that he had no venal motive in the handling of the attorney escrow account ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [b]), we nonetheless reiterate that attorneys have a duty to safeguard client funds and, regardless of motive, the knowing misappropriation of client funds is significant misconduct that warrants the imposition of discipline ( see Matter of Galasso , 19 NY3d 688, 694 [2012]; Matter of Anderson , 206 AD3d 1431, 1433 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Cresci , 175 AD3d 1670 , 1672 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Malyszek , 171

2022Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.4 (c) defines "conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" as misconduct but, "[n]onetheless, evidence that an attorney has not acted with venality or dishonesty can appropriately be considered a factor in mitigation" ( Matter of Anderson , 206 AD3d 1431, 1433 [3d Dept 2022]; see 7 NY Jur 2d Attorneys at Law § 519; ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [b]).

2024We also note that respondent has a demonstrated disciplinary history in New Jersey, as addressed by October 2007 order of this Court, and has failed to report the extent of his disciplinary history — that is now the subject of this motion — to this Court ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]-[d]; Matter of Radshaw , 213 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Chechelnitsky , 192 AD3d at 1454 ).

2024Further, although respondent was previously suspended by this Court as a consequence of his [*3]attorney registration delinquencies, we note that this was approximately 10 years ago and sufficiently remote in time ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [m]).Given these circumstances, and noting that respondent has been reinstated to good standing in his home jurisdiction, we suspend respondent for 30 days, nunc pro tunc to the effective date of the foreign suspension order ( see Matter of Chechelnitsky , 192 AD3d at 1454 ; Matter of Freeman , 190 AD3d 1251, 1252 [3d De

2024Accordingly, in consideration of the serious and lengthy history of misconduct that respondent committed, as well as the mitigating factors, including the imposition of sanction in New Jersey ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [k]), we find that a 90-day suspension is an appropriate sanction ( see Matter of Haar , 212 AD3d at 1074-1075 ; Matter of Kreis , 180 AD3d 5 , 11 [1st Dept 2019]).

2024As such, our attention is directed to the relevant aggravating factors, including respondent's failure to report his Connecticut reprimand and contempt finding to this Court ( see Matter of Radshaw , 213 AD3d 1193 , 1194 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Haar , 212 AD3d 1072 , 1074 [3d Dept 2023]), as well as his substantial experience in law and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct — as exemplified by his "disagreement" with Superior Court's contempt findings ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [g], [i]).

2026We have generally imposed a censure in cases involving negligent representation — including in the criminal context — after consideration of the relevant mitigating evidence (<i>see Matter of Cruikshank</i>, 246 AD3d 1215 , 1218 [3d Dept 2026]; <i>Matter of D'Amico</i>, 166 AD3d 1375 , 1376 [3d Dept 2018]; <i>Matter of Shaw</i>, 137 AD3d 19, 20-21 [1st Dept 2016<span>[*2]</span>]; <i>see also Matter of Hoover</i>,<i></i> 196 AD3d 994, 995-996 [3d Dept 2021]; <i>compare Matter of Swayze</i>, 230 AD3d 906 , 907 [3d Dept 2024];<i> Matter of Ezeala</i>, 163 AD3d 1348 , 1349 [3d Dept 2018]).</p> <p

2021Having considered these factors, along with other practical considerations, we find that a censure is appropriate under the circumstances ( see Matter of Hoover , 196 AD3d at 995-996 ; Matter of Marquis , 192 AD3d 83, 86-87 [2020]; see also Matter of Petigara , 186 AD3d 940, 942 [2020]).

2026In aggravation, petitioner cites respondent's prior disciplinary history of an admonition for similar misconduct ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]; see also Matter of Nwosu , 244 AD3d at 1578; Matter of Altman , 227 AD3d at 1218 ), as well as his representation of vulnerable clients — namely, those involved in immigration proceedings ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [h]; see also Matter of Nwosu , 244 AD3d at 1578; Matter of Ambe , 182 AD3d at 697 ).

2025Most pressingly, we note that respondent — an experienced attorney — was serving highly vulnerable clients — namely, those involved in immigration proceedings ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [h], [i]; see also Matter of Ambe , 182 AD3d 695, 697 [3d Dept 2020]).

2024We also note that respondent has a demonstrated disciplinary history in New Jersey, as addressed by October 2007 order of this Court, and has failed to report the extent of his disciplinary history — that is now the subject of this motion — to this Court ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]-[d]; Matter of Radshaw , 213 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Chechelnitsky , 192 AD3d at 1454 ).

2024As such, our attention is directed to the relevant aggravating factors, including respondent's failure to report his Connecticut reprimand and contempt finding to this Court ( see Matter of Radshaw , 213 AD3d 1193 , 1194 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Haar , 212 AD3d 1072 , 1074 [3d Dept 2023]), as well as his substantial experience in law and refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of the conduct — as exemplified by his "disagreement" with Superior Court's contempt findings ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [g], [i]).

2023In consideration of all the facts and circumstances presented, we disbar respondent ( see Matter of McCullough , 213 AD3d at 1138 ; Matter of Park , 188 AD3d at 1552 ), and we direct that any future reinstatement application by respondent in this state include proof that he has been reinstated to the practice of law in California and that he has satisfied his attorney registration obligations in this state.

2022Further, since the time of his disbarment in Florida, respondent has pleaded nolo contendere to the unauthorized practice of law ( see Fla Stat § 454.23), a third-degree felony in Florida, stemming from his sustained misconduct ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [k]). [FN4] Ultimately, we find that there is no justification to deviate from the severity of the sanction imposed in Florida ( see Matter of Park , 188 AD3d 1550, 1552 [2020]).

2023While respondent notes, as a mitigating factor, that he had no venal motive in the handling of the attorney escrow account ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [b]), we nonetheless reiterate that attorneys have a duty to safeguard client funds and, regardless of motive, the knowing misappropriation of client funds is significant misconduct that warrants the imposition of discipline ( see Matter of Galasso , 19 NY3d 688, 694 [2012]; Matter of Anderson , 206 AD3d 1431, 1433 [3d Dept 2022]; Matter of Cresci , 175 AD3d 1670 , 1672 [3d Dept 2019]; Matter of Malyszek , 171

2022Nonetheless, evidence that an attorney has not acted with venality or dishonesty can appropriately be considered a factor in mitigation ( see id. at 694 ; see also ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [b]; 7 NY Jur 2d Attorneys at Law § 519).

2021As part of our determination of the appropriate sanction, we have considered the factors identified in respondent's stipulation to discipline in Washington, which was ultimately accepted by the Supreme Court of Washington ( see Matter of Berglund , 183 AD3d 1178, 1179 [2020]). [FN2] Specifically, in mitigation of respondent's misconduct, the parties stipulated that respondent has no prior disciplinary history, that his actions were taken without a dishonest or selfish motive and that he possessed a good reputation and character ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [a

2020In total, we find no reason to deviate from the severity of the sanction imposed in California ( see Matter of Berglund , 183 AD3d at 1179 ; Matter of Johnson , 182 AD3d at 900).

2026Accordingly, based on the aggravating and mitigating factors presented, and in consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that a censure is appropriate ( see Matter of Patel , 43 AD3d at 550 ).

2026Accordingly, based on the aggravating and mitigating factors presented, and in consideration of all the facts and circumstances, we conclude that a censure is appropriate ( see Matter of Patel , 43 AD3d at 550).

2026Conversely, in aggravation, petitioner cites respondent's prior disciplinary history for similar misconduct (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]; <i>see also Matter of Chukwu</i>, ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 01266, *1-2 [3d Dept 2026]; <i>Matter of Sutton</i>, 232 AD3d 985 , 986-987 [3d Dept 2024]; <i>Matter of Hogan</i>, 143 AD3d 1044, 1045 [3d Dept 2016]), as well as her substantial experience in the practice of law (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [i]; <i>see also Matter of White</i>, 243 AD3d 1112 , 1114 [3

2026Conversely, in aggravation, petitioner cites respondent's prior disciplinary history for similar misconduct (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]; <i>see also Matter of Chukwu</i>, ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 01266, *1-2 [3d Dept 2026]; <i>Matter of Sutton</i>, 232 AD3d 985 , 986-987 [3d Dept 2024]; <i>Matter of Hogan</i>, 143 AD3d 1044, 1045 [3d Dept 2016]), as well as her substantial experience in the practice of law (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [i]; <i>see also Matter of White</i>, 243 AD3d 1112 , 1114 [3

2026Conversely, in aggravation, petitioner cites respondent's prior disciplinary history for similar misconduct (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]; <i>see also Matter of Chukwu</i>, ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 01266, *1-2 [3d Dept 2026]; <i>Matter of Sutton</i>, 232 AD3d 985 , 986-987 [3d Dept 2024]; <i>Matter of Hogan</i>, 143 AD3d 1044, 1045 [3d Dept 2016]), as well as her substantial experience in the practice of law (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [i]; <i>see also Matter of White</i>, 243 AD3d 1112 , 1114 [3

2026Conversely, in aggravation, petitioner cites respondent's prior disciplinary history for similar misconduct (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]; <i>see also Matter of Chukwu</i>, ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 01266, *1-2 [3d Dept 2026]; <i>Matter of Sutton</i>, 232 AD3d 985 , 986-987 [3d Dept 2024]; <i>Matter of Hogan</i>, 143 AD3d 1044, 1045 [3d Dept 2016]), as well as her substantial experience in the practice of law (<i>see </i>ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [i]; <i>see also Matter of White</i>, 243 AD3d 1112 , 1114 [3

2025Given the totality of the circumstances, and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession, and to deter others from committing similar misconduct ( see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]), we grant the parties' motion and censure respondent ( see Matter of Lauletta , 167 AD3d 1225, 1226 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of Wilkins , 70 AD3d 1119, 1119-1120 [3d Dept 2010]).

2025Given the totality of the circumstances, and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession, and to deter others from committing similar misconduct ( see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]), we grant the parties' motion and censure respondent ( see Matter of Lauletta , 167 AD3d 1225 , 1226 [3d Dept 2018]; Matter of Wilkins , 70 AD3d 1119, 1119-1120 [3d Dept 2010]).

2025While we are mindful that respondent's impairment may mitigate against some of his misconduct ( see generally Matter of Lee , 107 AD3d 1376 , 1376 [3d Dept 2013]; Matter of Kramer , 73 AD2d 983, 983 [3d Dept 1980]), it is emphasized that respondent was retained by six of the clients at issue prior to suffering the stroke.

2025Given the totality of the circumstances, we grant the parties' motion and censure respondent ( see Matter of Gamalski , 218 AD3d 992, 994 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Castelli , 180 AD3d 152, 154 [2d Dept 2020]; Matter of Dowgier , 170 AD3d 1424 , 1425 [3d Dept 2019]). [FN1] Clark, J.P., Lynch, Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

2025Moreover, we are mindful that respondent's actions prejudiced his client in more than one instance, given that the client was deprived of instituting various collection actions based on respondent's lack of diligence ( see Matter of Grey , 122 AD2d 626, 663 [3d Dept 1986]; see also ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 4.42 [b]).

2025We therefore conclude, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances presented, and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and deter other from committing similar misconduct, that respondent [*3]should be suspended from the practice of law in this state for six months and one day ( see Matter of Grey , 122 AD2d at 663 ).

2025Moreover, respondent has expressed a disinterest in his fate as an attorney in this state, as reflected by his 11-year suspension based on his failure to comply with his attorney registration obligations in this state, his continued delinquency for nine consecutive biennial periods ( see Matter of Shedlick , 234 AD3d 1101 , 1103 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Aljaludi , 226 AD3d 1254, 1256 [3d Dept 2024]), as well as his overall acquiescence to discipline in this state.

2025Based 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]).

2025Given the totality of the circumstances, we grant the parties' motion and censure respondent ( see Matter of Gamalski , 218 AD3d 992, 994 [3d Dept 2023]; Matter of Castelli , 180 AD3d 152, 154 [2d Dept 2020]; Matter of Dowgier , 170 AD3d 1424 , 1425 [3d Dept 2019]). [FN1] Clark, J.P., Lynch, Fisher, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.

2024As petitioner argues, respondent's misconduct is significantly aggravated by his lengthy disciplinary history in this state, which includes a six-month suspension by this Court in 1981 ( see Matter of Orseck , 81 AD2d at 962-963), a censure in 1999 ( see Matter of Orseck , 262 AD2d at 864 ) and various forms of private discipline over the course of respondent's numerous years in practice ( see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [i]).