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

• Decision Date: 02 November 2020
• Docket Number: Motion Nos. 2020-02793,2020-03273,Case No. 2019-00253
• Citation: 192 A.D.3d 180,139 N.Y.S.3d 128
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Youras ZIANKOVICH, (Admitted as Youry Ziankovich), a suspended attorney: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Youras Ziankovich (OCA Atty Reg No. 5196324), Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

192 A.D.3d 180

139 N.Y.S.3d 128

In the MATTER OF Youras ZIANKOVICH, (Admitted as Youry Ziankovich), a suspended attorney:Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,

v.Youras Ziankovich (OCA Atty Reg No. 5196324), Respondent.

Motion Nos. 2020-02793

2020-03273

Case No. 2019-00253

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

November 2, 2020

Entered January 5, 2021

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York, (Denice M. Szekely, of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent, pro se.

Judith J. Gische, J.P., Troy K. Webber, Angela M. Mazzarelli, Cynthia S. Kern, Peter H. Moulton, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF YOURAS ZIANKOVICH , A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY

Per Curiam

Respondent Youras Ziankovich was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on February 26, 2014, under the name Youry Ziankovich. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained a registered address within the First Judicial Department.

By order entered January 16, 2020, this Court, inter alia, granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's (the Committee) reciprocal discipline motion, finding that the conduct underlying respondent's 2018 discipline in Colorado would constitute misconduct in New York and suspended him for a period of six months effective February 18, 2020 and until further order of the Court (180 A.D.3d 140, 118 N.Y.S.3d 30 [1st Dept. 2020] ). On March 12, 2020, this Court denied respondent's motion for reargument, modification, a stay and other relief.

On or about July 25, 2020, respondent filed a motion for reinstatement to the practice of law in New York pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.16(d). As relevant, respondent states that since this Court's order of suspension entered January 16, 2020 (effective February 18, 2020), he has not been the subject of professional discipline in any court or jurisdiction; he has not been arrested, charged or indicted of any felonies, misdemeanors or traffic violations; he has fully complied with the order of suspension and filed an affidavit of compliance on July 24, 2020; and from January 16 to March 30, 2020, he was employed as a tax preparer but since then has been unemployed.

The Committee cross-moves seeking an order: 1) denying respondent's application for reinstatement, and 2) disciplining respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, predicated upon recent discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Colorado, and directing him to demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed for the underlying misconduct, or, in the alternative, suspending respondent for 30 months, or otherwise sanctioning him as this Court deems appropriate.

While respondent is not admitted to the Bar of the state of Colorado, under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct 8.5(a), the Colorado Supreme Court has disciplinary jurisdiction over him based on his practice of immigration law within that state.

By order dated June 20, 2018 (nunc pro tunc to May 31, 2018), the Supreme Court of Colorado suspended respondent from the practice of law in Colorado for a period of one year and one day, with three months to be served. As discussed below, this was based on, inter alia, charging an excessive fee and improperly treating advance fees as nonrefundable while representing a couple in an immigration matter, and misrepresenting to the client the date he mailed his immigration application ( People v. Ziankovich, 433 P.3d 640 ). Respondent's defenses, including a challenge to Colorado's jurisdiction over him as an out-of-state attorney with a practice limited to federal court, were rejected.¹

While respondent's suspension was ultimately stayed pending his appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, the stay was vacated and respondent's suspension ultimately took effect on October 31, 2018. On February 1, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the order of suspension (see Ziankovich v. Members of the Colo. Supreme Ct., 2020 U.S. Dist LEXIS 140520 *5–*6 [2020]), and on October 7, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari ( Ziankovich v. Colorado, ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 133, 205 L.Ed.2d 41 [2019] ). Thereafter, with respect to a separate client matter, respondent was found guilty of professional misconduct and ordered suspended from practicing law in Colorado for a period of 30 months (see People v. Ziankovich, 474 P.3d 253 ). The order took effect on September 9, 2020.

Respondent was disciplined based upon having been found to have violated Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct (CRPC) 1.3 (a lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness when representing a client); 1.4(a)(5) (a lawyer shall consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the rules); 1.4(b) (a lawyer shall explain a matter so as to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation); 1.5(a) (a lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses); 1.5(g) (a lawyer shall not charge nonrefundable fees or retainers); and 3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal).

It was determined that, inter alia, respondent caused his clients actual harm by failing to diligently pursue their immigration matter, causing unnecessary delay, and bringing a retaliatory and frivolous lawsuit against them. Specifically, the determination was that respondent,

"transgressed six Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct while representing a husband and wife in their immigration matter. He failed to provide his clients with diligent representation, to advise his clients that he was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado, to keep his clients informed about their case, and to respond to their reasonable requests for information. Further, he was unavailable to fulfill the terms of his engagement agreement, and he treated his retainer fee as nonrefundable by refusing to return any portion of the advance retainer when the representation ended. Finally, Respondent knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal and a prior disciplinary order by failing to notify his clients in writing by certified mail of his suspension and his consequent inability to act as their lawyer after his suspension took effect. Through these actions, his clients were actually and potentially harmed" ( People v. Ziankovich, 474 P.3d at 262 ).

In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, respondent may raise the following defenses: (1) a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard in the foreign jurisdiction constituting a deprivation of due process; (2) an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; or (3) that the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in this state ( Matter of Martir, 180 A.D.3d 67, 116 N.Y.S.3d 280 [1st Dept. 2019] ).

Respondent argues that the defenses under 1240.13(b)(1) and (3) apply herein, and claims, among other things, that the Colorado "administrative agency"/Presiding Disciplinary Judge was biased against him due to personal motives and gave him no opportunity to be heard.

Contrary to respondent's position, none of the...