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

• Decision Date: 28 March 2019
• Docket Number: M-71
• Citation: 96 N.Y.S.3d 570,171 A.D.3d 180
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Marcus R. MUMFORD, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Marcus R. Mumford, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

171 A.D.3d 180

96 N.Y.S.3d 570

In the MATTER OF Marcus R. MUMFORD, an attorney and counselor-at-law:Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,

v.Marcus R. Mumford, Respondent.

M-71

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

[March 28, 2019]

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

Hon. John W. Sweeny, Jr., Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Judith J. Gische, Marcy L. Kahn, Cynthia S. Kern, Justices.

PER CURIAM

Respondent Marcus R. Mumford was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on November 14, 2001. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained a registered address in Utah, where he is admitted to practice and resides.

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) seeks an order, pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13, for this Court to impose reciprocal discipline on respondent, predicated upon the discipline of an admonishment imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

By order of February 2, 2017, the Tenth Circuit granted respondent's motion to file an opening brief out of time on behalf of a defendant in an appeal before the court but in so doing referred respondent to the court's disciplinary panel based on a pattern of disregard for the court's case management deadlines and rules regarding motions for extensions of time. The Tenth Circuit cited to 10 appellate matters in which respondent had made late filings and noted his pattern of "fail[ing] to file a brief, petition or response to a court order by the applicable deadline, which was often extended multiple times prior to the late filing" and "[i]n many of those appeals, [respondent] filed motions for extensions of time and/or motions for leave to file documents out of time that did not comply with [the] court's rules regarding the timing of such motions ( 10th Cir. R. 27.5 ) and seeking the opposing party's position regarding the relief requested ( 10th Cir. R. 27.1 )." Having concern that respondent's "behavior evinces a pattern and practice of disregard for this court's rules, orders and deadlines," the court ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined.

In his response, respondent addressed the appeals cited by the court and explained that his conduct was the result of his preoccupation with other litigation matters as well as significant family obligations. Respondent expressed remorse for his dilatory conduct and maintained that his missteps did not involve dishonest or contumacious conduct. He also requested a hearing to present his case in mitigation.

By order of March 17, 2017, the court denied respondent's request for a hearing and imposed public discipline in the form of an admonishment. It held that "[u]pon careful consideration of [respondent's] response, we have concluded that an admonishment is sufficient to resolve this matter at this time. [Respondent's] failure to comply with this court's deadlines, rules and directives is inconsistent with the standards of practice required of attorneys admitted to appear before this court."

The AGC now moves for reciprocal discipline, maintaining that the prerequisites for reciprocal discipline have been satisfied because respondent received sufficient due process in the Tenth Circuit proceeding, the record included sufficient evidence of professional misconduct on his part and respondent's misconduct before that court would also constitute misconduct in New York. As to sanction, the AGC asserts that the relevant precedent supports the imposition of a public censure. Respondent has not submitted a response to the AGC's motion.

In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, respondent may raise the following defenses: (1) a lack of notice and opportunity to be heard in the foreign jurisdiction; (2) an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; or (3) that the misconduct at issue in the foreign jurisdiction would not constitute misconduct in New York. As respondent has not submitted a response, he has not raised any of the...