Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Gluck (In re Gluck)

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 153 A.D.3d 301,59 N.Y.S.3d 368
• Parties: In the Matter of Joel M. GLUCK, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Joel M. Gluck, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 08 August 2017

153 A.D.3d 301
59 N.Y.S.3d 368

In the Matter of Joel M. GLUCK, an attorney and counselor-at-law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,

Joel M. Gluck, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Aug. 8, 2017.

59 N.Y.S.3d 368

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Naomi F. Goldstein, of counsel), for petitioner.

Michael A. Gentile, for respondent.

DAVID FRIEDMAN, Justice Presiding, SALLIE MANZANET–DANIELS, KARLA MOSKOWITZ, BARBARA R. KAPNICK, TROY K. WEBBER, Justices.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Joel M. Gluck was admitted to the practice of law in New York by the First Judicial Department on March 1, 1982, and maintains an office for the practice of law within the First Department.

By opinion and order dated July 15, 2015, the Committee on Grievances for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (COG) publicly reprimanded respondent for disregarding "multiple court orders in more than ten federal actions, fail[ing] to appropriately communicate with clients and the court and delay[ing] numerous litigations to the detriment of clients and adversaries" in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ) (RPC) rules 1.1 (competence), 1.3 (lack of diligence), 1.4 (failure to communicate with client), 3.2 (delay of litigation), 3.3 (conduct before a tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 8.4 (misconduct) ( Matter of Gluck, 114 F.Supp.3d 57, 58 [E.D.N.Y. 2015] ).

Although the COG's decision specifically directed respondent to disclose its decision to all courts and bars of which he is a member, respondent did not report his

59 N.Y.S.3d 369

federal discipline until November 2016, when he advised the Grievance Committee in the Second Department. Thereafter, the Second Department forwarded the Eastern District's decision and order to the Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee).

The Committee now seeks an order pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR § 1240.13 ), finding that respondent has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction and directing him to demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed in New York for the underlying misconduct. Respondent consents to the motion and, if discipline is to be imposed, he asks that it be a public censure.

In August 2013, the COG issued an order to show cause as to why respondent should not be disciplined for his repeated noncompliance with numerous orders issued in a discrimination action in which he represented the plaintiff. In October 2013, respondent submitted an answer explaining that a difficult financial situation and limited office staff affected his representation and asked that a sanction no greater than a reprimand be imposed. In November 2013, respondent submitted a supplemental response advising that he had paid the sanctions and fees imposed upon him in the underlying case.

In May 2014, the COG issued an order to show cause with a supplemental statement of charges setting forth respondent's extensive history of misconduct...