Opinion
HHDCV146048385S
02-27-2017
Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. John Wang
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Antonio C. Robaina, J., Kwak, J., Sheridan J.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Before the court is the application of John Wang (" the Applicant") for reinstatement to the bar, after suspension, which was filed on January 25, 2016.
I. NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for reinstatement to the bar after the suspension, disbarment or resignation of an attorney are governed by General Statutes § 51-93 and the procedures set forth in Practice Book § 2-53, entitled " Reinstatement after Suspension, Disbarment or Resignation." Specifically, § 2-53(f) provides that an attorney who has been suspended from the practice of law for one year or more and who applies for reinstatement must do so in accordance with § 2-53. Section 2-53(a) provides that an attorney's application for reinstatement " shall be referred, by the court to which it is brought, to the standing committee on recommendations for admission to the bar that has jurisdiction over the judicial district court location in which the applicant was suspended or disbarred or resigned." Thereafter, " [t]he standing committee on recommendations shall investigate the application, hold hearings pertaining thereto and render a report with its recommendation to the court. It shall take all testimony at its hearings under oath and shall include in its report subordinate findings of facts and conclusions as well as its recommendation." Practice Book § 2-53(b). " The court shall thereupon inform the chief justice of the supreme court of the pending application and report, and the chief justice shall designate two other judges of the superior court to sit with the judge presiding at the session. Such three judges, or a majority of them, shall determine whether the application should be granted." Practice Book § 2-53(c). " If the petition for readmission or reinstatement is denied, the reason thereof shall be stated on the record or put in writing." Practice Book § 2-53(e).
II. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The record as submitted reveals the following pertinent facts.
The Applicant was admitted to the Bar on October 30, 2006. The Applicant ran his own law firm, Wang & Associates, with a practice concentrated on immigration law.
On July 2, 2013, the Applicant entered a guilty plea to a single count of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. The charge was based upon a three-year pattern of assisting in the filing of false statements by clients as part of asylum applications in the Immigration Court. The Applicant's firm filed fraudulent asylum applications for Chinese nationals, claiming that they had suffered persecution in their home country, when they had not. In his plea agreement, the Applicant admitted to facilitating between 25 and 99 fraudulent applications for asylum.
Under the Federal sentencing guidelines, the Applicant could have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 27 to 33 months. On December 12, 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a sentence of two years' probation, with payment of a ten thousand dollar fine.
On March 3, 2014, the Honorable Antonio Robaina suspended the Applicant from the practice of law for a period of two years, suspension retroactive to December 12, 2013. The Applicant was also required to attend one continuing legal education course in Immigration Law and attend one continuing legal education course in IOLTA/office management.
The Applicant paid the fine imposed by the District Court and completed his term of probation on December 15, 2015. Approximately one month later, on January 25, 2016, the Applicant filed the present Application for Reinstatement to the Bar, After Suspension.
On or about February 3, 2016, the Honorable Patrick L. Carroll, Ill. Chief Court Administrator, referred the Application to the Fairfield County Standing Committee on Recommendations for Admission to the Bar (hereinafter " the Committee") for investigation and recommendation. The Committee investigated the application and received evidence regarding the Applicant's fitness to practice law.
The Committee noted several significant omissions from the Application document submitted by the Applicant which the Committee interpreted as indicative of a lack of candor with regard to that submission. Those omissions included his disbarment from the United States Immigration Court and a 2012 arrest for welfare fraud, with a subsequent guilty plea to a substituted charge of disorderly conduct. The investigation revealed that while under suspension from the practice of law, the Applicant obtained a real estate license in New York and had been working for his family managing real estate and doing some translating work. No volunteer work was identified. Also, the Applicant indicated that, if reinstated, he did not intend to consult with a practice mentor. It was also noted that one of the character reference letters that had been submitted by the Applicant was from an attorney who had been recently disbarred by the U.S. Immigration Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Committee held a hearing on May 9, 2016. During the hearing a number of documents, including additional character reference letters, were marked as exhibits. The Applicant was present at the hearing and was permitted to testify. The Court-appointed trustee for the Applicant's legal practice, Attorney Michael Boyle, also testified.
On August 1, 2016, the Committee issued its opinion and recommendation. On the basis of its investigation and the evidence produced at the hearing, the Committee found that that the Applicant had failed to meet his burden of proof as to his present fitness to practice law based on the factors outlined in Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430, 454-55, 87 A.3d 1078 (2014).
The Committee found that the Applicant's failure to disclose his 2012 arrest for welfare fraud in his reinstatement application, coupled with his unsatisfactory explanation for that omission, showed " a total lack of candor and honesty before the Committee." The Committee also found no evidence of any rehabilitation on the part of the Applicant, and felt that sufficient time had not passed for the Applicant to demonstrate the requisite moral trustworthiness to justify reinstatement.
Examining the criminal conduct that led to the Applicant's suspension, the Committee observed that the misconduct was undoubtedly " serious" because of the enormous injury that immigration fraud causes to the immigrations system, honest immigrants, and the public at large. The Committee also remarked that the seriousness of the misconduct related directly to the professional duties of an attorney, since it involved deliberately, repeatedly presenting evidence which the lawyer knew to be untrue to a court of law. Such misconduct is not only a crime; it also has the effect of seriously undermining the integrity of the judicial system. The Applicant's participation in this fraud was judged to be " extensive, " rather than minor or incidental.
Despite the gravity of the misconduct, the Committee noted that the Applicant appeared unable to sincerely and honestly acknowledge his wrongdoing and accept responsibility for his offense--without excuses. He never expressed any remorse for his actions " other than to explain he did it all for money and was relieved he was not sentenced to prison."
The Committee found that the Applicant failed to meet the standards for good moral character and fitness to practice law set forth in Practice Book § 2-5A, and recommended against reinstatement at this time.
Pursuant to Practice Book § 2-53, the Chief Justice has designated the undersigned judges as a three-judge panel (hereinafter, " the Panel") to determine whether the application should be granted. A hearing was held on December 20, 2016 at which the Applicant, the office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, the chairperson of the Committee, and the Statewide Grievance Committee all appeared and were heard.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Supreme Court in Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430, 87 A.3d 1078 (2014) set forth the standard of review to be utilized by the court when considering a recommendation concerning reinstatement of an attorney. The Court held:
" Fixing the qualifications for, as well as admitting [or readmitting] persons to, the practice of law in this state has ever been an exercise of judicial power . . . This power has been exercised with the assistance of committees of the bar appointed and acting under rules of court." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Scott v. State Bar Examining Committee, 220 Conn. 812, 817, 601 A.2d 1021 (1992). " Although these committees have a broad power of discretion, they act under the court's supervision." Id. Accordingly, " [i]t is the court, and not the bar, or a committee, which takes the final and decisive action." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
In deciding whether to accept or reject a standing committee recommendation on reinstatement to the bar, the trial court does not take evidence or hear the matter de novo. Id., 817-18. Rather, it reviews the standing committee's " decision on [the] record to determine whether [the standing committee] has conducted a fair and impartial investigation, " and whether it " acted fairly and reasonably or from prejudice and ill will in its consideration of the application." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 818. Ultimately, the court must decide whether the standing committee, by approving or withholding its approval of an application, " acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or in abuse of its discretion or without a fair investigation of the facts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. In either admission or readmission proceedings, the burden is on an applicant to prove his or her present fitness to practice law. In re Application of Warren, 149 Conn. 266, 274, 178 A.2d 528 (1962); Statewide Grievance Committee v. Rapoport, 119 Conn.App. 269, 275 n.3, 987 A.2d 1075, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 907, 995 A.2d 639 (2010). Accordingly, in the case of a positive recommendation on reinstatement by the standing committee, the trial court must ensure that that burden has been satisfied. If the probative and credited evidence submitted by the applicant, on the whole, is not sufficient to establish present fitness, a recommendation of reinstatement necessarily is outside the reasonable range of outcomes to which a reviewing court should defer under the abuse of discretion standard.
As to any subordinate facts found by a standing committee, the trial court reviews them only for clear error. A factual determination " is clearly erroneous only in cases in which the record contains no evidence to support it, or in cases in which there is evidence, but the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Considine v. Waterbury, 279 Conn. 830, 858, 905 A.2d 70 (2006). The standing committee, as fact finder, " determines with finality the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Scott v. State Bar Examining Committee, supra, 220 Conn. 822. At the same time, " [t]he ultimate facts [found by a standing committee] are reviewable by the court to determine whether they are reasonable and proper in view of the subordinate facts found and the applicable principles of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 824.Statewide Grievance Committee v. Ganim, 311 Conn. 430, 450-52, 87 A.3d 1078 (2014).
IV. ANALYSIS
The Panel has thoroughly reviewed the documentary record and the factual conclusions of the Committee according to the applicable standards of law, as set forth above. The Panel has also evaluated the candor and overall demeanor of the Applicant at the hearing before the panel in responding to questions regarding his acceptance of responsibility and his recognition of the harm his violation of federal criminal law has caused to the legal profession and the public.
The documentary record reveals a fair and impartial investigation of the facts related to the Application and a comprehensive hearing where the Applicant was permitted to present evidence as to his character and fitness to practice law. The documentary record and the testimony at the hearing fully support the Committee's conclusions regarding the nature and seriousness of the misconduct which led to the Applicant's suspension; the Applicant's failure to accept responsibility and recognize the harm that his conduct caused to the legal profession and to the public; the absence of present moral fitness and trustworthiness; and the lack of exemplary behavior persisting for a sufficient period of time to provide the necessary assurance that the Applicant may once again be entrusted with the solemn ethical and professional responsibilities associated with the private practice of law.
Having conducted a complete review of the record, as previously set forth, this Panel cannot conclude that the Committee acted arbitrarily or unreasonably or in abuse of its discretion, or without a fair investigation of the facts, in recommending that John Wang not be readmitted to the practice of law in Connecticut.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we unanimously agree with and accept the July 15, 2016 recommendation of the Standing Committee on Recommendations for Admission to the Bar of Fairfield County. The application of John Wang for readmission to the Bar is denied.