Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Salis (In re Salis), Motion Nos. 2022-03322 & 2022-03642

• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 178 N.Y.S.3d 66
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Owolabi M. SALIS, an attorney and counselor-at law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Owolabi M. Salis, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4012886), Respondent.
• Docket Number: Motion Nos. 2022-03322 & 2022-03642,Case No. 2013–00285
• Decision Date: 29 November 2022

178 N.Y.S.3d 66

In the MATTER OF Owolabi M. SALIS, an attorney and counselor-at law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
v.
Owolabi M. Salis, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4012886), Respondent.

Motion Nos. 2022-03322 & 2022-03642
Case No. 2013–00285

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

Entered November 29, 2022

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

Respondent pro se.

Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Judith J. Gische, Troy K. Webber, Cynthia S. Kern, Julio Rodriguez III, JJ.

Per Curiam

Respondent Owolabi M. Salis was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on June 26, 2002. At all times relevant herein, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

In 2016, respondent was acquitted of criminal charges brought against him in New York County involving the filing of fraudulent immigration petitions. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security referred respondent's conduct to the Attorney

178 N.Y.S.3d 68

Grievance Committee (AGC), which led to charges related to the fraudulent filing of hundreds of visa petitions and adjustment of status applications. In 2019, this Court appointed a Referee to hold a hearing on the charges; after motion practice and delays caused by the pandemic, the Referee held a hearing in May 2021. Per respondent's request, the hearing focused solely on liability, with a sanction hearing, if necessary, to follow.

On March 25, 2022, the Referee issued a report sustaining all charges, finding respondent to be in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ) rules 3.1, 3.3(f), 7.1(a)(1), 7.1(f), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). On May 16, 2022 (two days before the sanction hearing), respondent moved for reargument or reconsideration of the Referee's liability findings, to disaffirm same, and to stay the sanction hearing. On May 18, 2022, the Referee presided over a sanction hearing. Respondent did not appear at the hearing, nor did he phone or email to explain his absence. The Referee found respondent in default and the sanction hearing proceeded.

By June 9 and June 10, 2022 submissions to the Referee, respondent maintained, inter...