Opinion
Motion No. 2023–02759 Case No. 2023–03106
09-21-2023
In the MATTER OF Jack H.C. NGUYEN (Admitted as Jack Huu-Chinh Nguyen), An Attorney and Counselor-at-Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Jack H.C. Nguyen, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4136297), Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Raymond Vallejo, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner. Megan Zavieh, Esq., for respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Raymond Vallejo, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner.
Megan Zavieh, Esq., for respondent.
Present – Hon. Ellen Gesmer, Justice Presiding, Saliann Scarpulla, Manuel J. Mendez, Martin Shulman, John R. Higgitt, Justices.
PER CURIAM Respondent Jack H.C. Nguyen was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on April 10, 2003, under the name Jack Huu–Chinh Nguyen. Respondent maintains a registered address in California. As the admitting Judicial Department, this Court retains continuing jurisdiction over respondent (Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [a][2]).
On December 6, 2022, respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Central District of California Western Division to one count of Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments in violation of 18 USC § 1956(h). Respondent's conviction stemmed from his conspiring with others in early 2013 to create a foundation to launder and conceal proceeds from the sale of illegal narcotics and illegal weapons. On April 24, 2023, respondent was sentenced to incarceration for one year and one day, followed by two years of supervised release, and fined $50,000.
The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order determining that the crime of which respondent has been convicted is a "serious crime" under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) ; immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(b)(2) ; and directing respondent to show cause before a referee appointed by the Court, within 90 days of his release from prison, why a final order of censure, suspension, or disbarment should not be made under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(g) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2).
Respondent, through counsel, does not oppose the Committee's request for "serious crime" related relief, including his interim suspension. Respondent also does not oppose the request for a sanctions hearing, provided that he be permitted to appear and show cause after his release from prison.
This Court has previously determined that respondent's crime, Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments in violation of 18 USC § 1956(h), is a "serious crime" under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) (see Matter of Flores, 23 A.D.3d 79, 802 N.Y.S.2d 114 [1st Dept. 2005] ; Matter of Hirschl, 280 A.D.2d 172, 719 N.Y.S.2d 859 [1st Dept. 2001] ; Matter of Lee, 235 A.D.2d 110, 663 N.Y.S.2d 161 [1st Dept. 1997] ; Matter of Weinig, 220 A.D.2d 184, 642 N.Y.S.2d 654 [1st Dept. 1996] ).
We have also consistently held that during the pendency of a "serious crime" proceeding it is appropriate to impose an interim suspension under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) where, as here, the attorney has been convicted of a felony and is serving a term of probation or imprisonment (see Matter of Stein, 137 A.D.3d 104, 106 22 N.Y.S.3d 451 [1st Dept. 2016] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's motion to deem respondent's offense to be a "serious crime" within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) should be granted. Respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(ii). Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(g) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(i) and (iv), respondent is directed, within 90 days from the date of his release from prison, to show cause before a referee appointed by this Court as to why a final order of censure, suspension, or disbarment should not be made.
All concur.
It is Ordered that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee of the First Judicial Department to deem the offense of which respondent, Jack H.C. Nguyen, admitted as Jack Huu–Chinh Nguyen has been found guilty, to be a "serious crime" within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d), is granted, and respondent is immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR(c)(2)(ii), effective the date hereof, and until such time as pending disciplinary matters have been concluded, and until further order of this Court; and
It is further Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(g) and (h) and 22 NYCRR 1240(c)(2)(i) and (iv), respondent, Jack H.C. Nguyen, admitted as Jack Huu–Chinh Nguyen, is directed, within 90 days from the date of his release from prison, to show cause before a referee appointed herein, why a final order of censure, suspension, or disbarment should not be made based on his conviction of a serious crime as defined in Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) ; and
It is further Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension respondent, Jack H.C. Nguyen, admitted as Jack Huu–Chinh Nguyen, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and
It is further Ordered that, during the period of suspension, respondent, Jack H.C. Nguyen, admitted as Jack Huu–Chinh Nguyen, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15 ), which are made part hereof; and
It is further Ordered that James T. Shed, Esq., 172 West 82 nd Street, Apartment 4C, New York, N.Y. 10024, (212) 580–2116, [email protected], is appointed as Referee to hold a hearing, and to issue a report and recommendation to this Court, with the report to be submitted within 60 days of the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda.