Comm. on Prof'l Standards v. Rea (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A)

• Decision Date: 08 December 2022
• Docket Number: PM-214-22
• Citation: 211 A.D.3d 1229,179 N.Y.S.3d 482
• Parties: In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Angela Marie Rea, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4150504)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

211 A.D.3d 1229

179 N.Y.S.3d 482

In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A.

Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner;

v.Angela Marie Rea, Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 4150504)

PM-214-22

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

Calendar Date: August 29, 2022

Decided and Entered: December 8, 2022

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner.

Angela Marie Rea, Louisville, Kentucky, respondent pro se.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Ceresia and McShan, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2003 and is also admitted in Kentucky, where she resides and has served as a public defender since 2003. She was suspended from the practice of law in this state by January 2014 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her failure to comply with her attorney registration obligations beginning in 2005 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1048, 984 N.Y.S.2d 134 [3d Dept. 2014] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5] ; Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d]). She cured her registration delinquency in May 2022 and now applies for her reinstatement and, in succession, for an order granting her leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 ). Petitioner advises that it defers to this Court's discretion as to the overall disposition of respondent's motion.¹

Initially, it is noted that respondent seeks to avail herself of an expedited procedure approved by this Court wherein she contemporaneously seeks her reinstatement to the practice of law in this state and requests leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons (see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Fernando], 198 A.D.3d 1096, 1096–1097, 155 N.Y.S.3d 469 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Thurston], 186 A.D.3d 963, 964, 129 N.Y.S.3d 541 [3d Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Menar], 185 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 127 N.Y.S.3d 605 [3d Dept. 2020] ). Addressing first her application for reinstatement, we find that respondent has appropriately submitted a sworn affidavit in the proper form provided for in appendix C of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, as is required for all attorneys suspended for longer than six months. As for other threshold documentation applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions of more than six months, respondent seeks a waiver from the requirement that she provide proof of her passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) within one year prior to her reinstatement application (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 ).

To demonstrate one's entitlement to a waiver of the MPRE requirement, "good cause" must be shown, which standard may be satisfied by providing assurances "that additional MPRE testing would be unnecessary under the circumstances" (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [3d Dept. 2017] ). In this regard, we conclude that respondent has sufficiently demonstrated that further MPRE testing is unnecessary in view of her continuing legal employment as a public defender in Kentucky, her extensive and ongoing participation in continuing legal education programs, and her otherwise unblemished disciplinary history. The need for additional ethical testing is further diminished by respondent's motion "to simultaneously resign in conjunction with her motion for reinstatement" ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [D'Alessandro], 177 A.D.3d 1243, 1244, 114 N.Y.S.3d 512 [3d Dept. 2019] ). Accordingly, we grant her request for a waiver from additional MPRE testing (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Fernando], 198 A.D.3d at 1097, 155 N.Y.S.3d 469 ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Menar], 185 A.D.3d at 1202, 127 N.Y.S.3d 605 ).

Turning to the substantive merits of respondent's application for reinstatement, we have further determined that respondent's submissions establish by clear and convincing evidence that she has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions in this state (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Narayanan], 202 A.D.3d 1269, 1270, 162 N.Y.S.3d 220 [3d Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Menar], 185 A.D.3d at 1202, 127 N.Y.S.3d 605 ; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). Specifically, we find that respondent's statements and submissions have sufficiently established her compliance with the order of suspension and the rules governing suspended attorneys; namely, that she has never represented any clients in this state, thus effectively negating any obligation to contact any client, return client property or return any fees. We also find that respondent has demonstrated the requisite character and fitness for reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Fernando], 198 A.D.3d at 1098, 155 N.Y.S.3d 469 ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Mayes] , 197 A.D.3d 1500, 1501, 153 N.Y.S.3d 716 [3d Dept. 2021] ).

Finally, in view of respondent's submissions and the nature of her misconduct, which is less severe than more egregious misconduct (see generally Matter of Sklar, 186 A.D.3d 1773, 1775, 130 N.Y.S.3d 859 [3d Dept. 2020] ), we find that respondent's reinstatement and ability to resign from the New York bar with an otherwise clean disciplinary history would be in the public interest (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §...