Opinion
5280.
Decided February 19, 2004.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, as Andrew Steven Marks, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on June 1, 1992.
Raymond Vallejo, of counsel, Thomas J. Cahill (Chief Counsel), for petitioner.
No appearance by respondent.
Before: Eugene Nardelli, Justice Presiding, David B. Saxe, Ernst H. Rosenberger, Milton L. Williams, David Friedman, Justices.
Respondent Andrew S. Marks was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York as Andrew Steven Marks by the First Judicial Department on June 1, 1992. Respondent currently resides in Massachusetts and was, until recently, Chief Patent Counsel to Vertex Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Respondent, in an information dated September 9, 2003, was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts with one count of insider trading securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) and 78ff(a), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, a felony. The information alleged that on September 21, 2001, based on material, non-public information regarding failed clinical trials of a new drug, respondent committed securities fraud by selling company stock and generating proceeds of approximately $476,000. Respondent pled guilty to the information on October 3, 2003, and was sentenced on January 12, 2004, to a term of one year and one day imprisonment, 24 months supervised released, and a $3,000 fine.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the "Committee") now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b). Respondent has declined to appear in this proceeding.
Grounds for automatic disbarment are demonstrated in those cases where an attorney is convicted of a felony outside of this State which would constitute a felony if committed in New York (Judiciary Law § 90[b], [e]), even if the foreign felony is not a "mirror image" of the New York statute ( Matter of Margiotta, 60 N.Y.2d 147, 150). Moreover, this Court has previously held that a conviction for securities fraud under 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) is "essentially similar" to the felony of fraudulent securities transactions in violation of General Business Law § 352-c(5) and (6) ( see Matter of Novich, 285 A.D.2d 136; Matter of Rosoff, 274 A.D.2d 241).
Accordingly, upon his felony conviction, respondent ceased to be an attorney authorized to practice law in this State. As a result, the Committee's petition to strike respondent's name from the rolls should be granted.
All concur.