In re Antoine

• Citation: 74 A.D.3d 67,899 N.Y.S.2d 41
• Parties: In the Matter of Max D. ANTOINE, a suspended legal consultant: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Max D. Antoine, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 15 April 2010
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

899 N.Y.S.2d 41
74 A.D.3d 67

In the Matter of Max D. ANTOINE, a suspended legal consultant:
Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,
Max D. Antoine, Respondent.

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

April 15, 2010.

899 N.Y.S.2d 41

Alan W. Friedberg, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Kevin E.F. O'Sullivan, of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

LUIS A. GONZALEZ, Presiding Justice, DAVID B. SAXE, JAMES M. CATTERSON, ROSALYN H. RICHTER, SHEILA ABDUS-SALAAM, Justices.

PER CURIAM.

74 A.D.3d 68

Respondent Max D. Antoine, a foreign attorney, was admitted to practice law in Haiti on May 13, 1997. On May 3, 2006, he was admitted by the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, to practice as a licensed legal consultant. At all times relevant to this proceeding he maintained an office within the First Judicial Department.

Individuals licensed to practice as legal consultants in this State are subject to professional discipline in the same manner and to the same extent as members of the bar in this State (see Rule at 22 NYCRR 603; Rules of the Court of Appeals at 22 NYCRR 521.5; Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility).

In April 2007, the Departmental Disciplinary Committee moved to seek the immediate revocation of respondent's license to practice as a legal consultant in New York on the ground of uncontested professional misconduct. By order entered October 23, 2007, this Court found that summary revocation of a license was not permitted, and instead, immediately suspended respondent from practice as a legal

899 N.Y.S.2d 42

consultant in the State of New York, until such time as disciplinary matters pending before the Disciplinary Committee had concluded.

Thereafter, the Committee filed six charges against respondent. Charge One alleged that by repeated efforts to represent himself as a New York lawyer rather than as a legal consultant, respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). Charge Two alleged that by repeatedly holding himself out as a New York attorney, and by directly disobeying the Court's restriction on his practice, respondent engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 22 NYCRR 521.3(f). Charge Three alleged that by failing to timely file an affidavit of compliance, respondent engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and 22 NYCRR 603.13(f). Charge Four alleged that by continuing to use the

74 A.D.3d 69

corporate name "American Corporate Society" in connection with his own, respondent used a trade name in violation of DR 2-102(B) and 22 NYCRR 521.3(g). Charge Five alleged that by using a business card listing his practice as being specialized in several areas, respondent represented his "practice" as being specialized in particular fields of law, in violation of DR 2-105(A). Finally, Charge Six alleged that by violating the above disciplinary rules, respondent demonstrated a lack of good moral character and general fitness required for a member of the bar of this State, and therefore, provides grounds for revocation of his license under 22 NYCRR 521.1(a)(3).

Respondent denied all charges. In July 2008, a Referee held a two day hearing at which respondent testified on his own behalf. In a report, the Referee sustained only Charges One and Six, recommending revocation of respondent's license as a...