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

• Decision Date: 27 February 2018
• Docket Number: M–4489
• Citation: 160 A.D.3d 69,70 N.Y.S.3d 503
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Jeffrey Michael BLUM, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey Michael Blum, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 1722719), Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

160 A.D.3d 69
70 N.Y.S.3d 503

In the MATTER OF Jeffrey Michael BLUM, an attorney and counselor-at-law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
v.
Jeffrey Michael Blum, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 1722719), Respondent.

M–4489

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

[February 27, 2018]

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Lance E. Philadelphia, of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

David Friedman, Justice Presiding, Richard T. Andrias, Judith J. Gische, Troy K. Webber, Peter H. Moulton, Justices.

Per Curiam

160 A.D.3d 70

Respondent Jeffrey Michael Blum was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on May 4, 1981. At all relevant times, respondent has maintained a registered address in Kentucky, where he resides and is admitted to the practice of law.

The instant matter arises from respondent's representation of a client whose employment as a Kentucky public school teacher was terminated based on findings of misconduct made by an administrative tribunal. In 2005, the teacher, represented by respondent, commenced an action under 42 USC § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against the school principal, an attorney for the school board, the superintendent of the school system, and the presiding officer at the final administrative hearing on the charges against the teacher. The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred and, upon its own motion, imposed sanctions on respondent personally pursuant to 28 USC § 1927, based on findings that, in spite of prior warnings by the court, he had repeatedly filed papers advancing specious legal claims, using inappropriate language, and/or engaging in personal attacks. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed both the dismissal of the complaint and the imposition of sanctions on respondent ( Dixon v. Clem, 492 F.3d 665 [6th Cir.2006] ).

Based on his conduct in Dixon, as found by the federal courts, the Kentucky Bar Association brought disciplinary charges against respondent. The Kentucky disciplinary proceedings culminated in April 2013 with a decision by the Supreme Court of Kentucky that affirmed three findings of misconduct against respondent and imposed on him a suspension from the practice of law of 181 days ( Kentucky Bar Assn. v. Blum, 404 S.W.3d 841 [Ky. 2013], cert denied sub nom Blum v. Kentucky Bar Assn., ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1952, 188 L.Ed.2d 963 [2014] ). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the following findings of misconduct: (1) that respondent had improperly threatened to advance disciplinary charges against opposing counsel in the federal litigation in order to gain advantage in a civil matter,

160 A.D.3d 71

in violation of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.130 –3.4(f); (2) that respondent had engaged in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, in violation of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.130 –3.5(c); and (3) that respondent, without basis, had repeatedly impugned the personal integrity of the administrative hearing officer his client was suing in the federal litigation, in violation of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.130 –8.2(a), which prohibits an...