Opinion
PM-121-20
09-24-2020
In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Robert Geoffrey Wilson, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2707636)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner. Robert Geoffrey Wilson, Somerville, New Jersey, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner.
Robert Geoffrey Wilson, Somerville, New Jersey, respondent pro se.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1995. He is also admitted to practice in New Jersey, where he presently lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration. By January 2014 order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 commencing in 2005 ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a , 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1057 [2014] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5] ; Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d] ). Notably, although respondent cured his registration delinquency in June 2016, and has since remained current, he remained suspended from the practice of law in this state and did not immediately seek reinstatement. Now, by application marked returnable September 8, 2020, respondent has moved for his reinstatement in New York (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] ). Noting certain omissions in respondent's submission, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent's application.
Finding no open claims against respondent, the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection advises that it does not oppose his reinstatement to the practice of law.
--------
Our review of respondent's reinstatement application confirms that he has sufficiently addressed the requisite three-part standard, namely that "[a]ll attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he or she has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) he or she has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) it would be in the public's interest to reinstate the attorney to practice in New York" ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Pratt], 186 A.D.3d 965, 965–68, 129 N.Y.S.3d 538, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 04625, *1 [2020] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a] ). An applicant for reinstatement must also provide, as a threshold matter, certain required documentation in support of his or her application (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; part 1240, appendix C).
Initially, given the length of his suspension, respondent properly submits a sworn affidavit in the proper form set forth in appendix C to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b] ). Respondent has also submitted sufficient threshold documentation in support of his application, including proof that he successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, as is required for all attorneys seeking reinstatement following suspensions of six months or more (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Castle], 161 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 73 N.Y.S.3d 774 [2018] ). Moreover, the submitted materials confirm respondent's compliance with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court. Finally, inasmuch as respondent has demonstrated that he possesses the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate him to the practice of law in this state (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Mahoney], 179 A.D.3d 1352, 1353, 114 N.Y.S.3d 263 [2020] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Sauer], 178 A.D.3d 1191, 1193, 114 N.Y.S.3d 523 [2019] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Koschwitz], 176 A.D.3d 1300, 1301, 107 N.Y.S.3d 728 [2019] ), we grant respondent's motion and reinstate him to the practice of law in New York, effective immediately.
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.