In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A

• Decision Date: 21 December 2017
• Docket Number: D–212–17
• Citation: 67 N.Y.S.3d 672,156 A.D.3d 1223
• 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; Ainagul Zhalgasbaevna Alimanova, now known as Ainagul Wilkinson, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3901394)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

156 A.D.3d 1223

67 N.Y.S.3d 672

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; Ainagul Zhalgasbaevna Alimanova, now known as Ainagul Wilkinson, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 3901394)

D–212–17

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

Calendar Date: October 2, 2017

Decided and Entered: December 21, 2017

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

Ainagul Wilkinson, London, United Kingdom, respondent pro se.

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Clark, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2000 and lists a business address in the United Kingdom with the Office of Court Administration. By January 2014 order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 ( 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1022, 979 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2014] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5 ]; Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d] ). Respondent now moves for her reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 ; Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] ), and petitioner advises, by correspondence from its Chief Attorney, that it defers to our discretion in disposition of the motion.

As a threshold matter, a suspended attorney seeking reinstatement in New York must apply by form affidavit prescribed in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, and must submit certain other documentation in support of that application (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Squires], 153 A.D.3d 1511, 1512, 60 N.Y.S.3d 604 [2017]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Timourian], 153 A.D.3d 1513, 1514, 59 N.Y.S.3d 924 [2017]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; appendices C, D). Here, respondent appropriately completed the requisite form affidavit (see Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a][2] ), and such affidavit is properly sworn to (compare Matter of Hughes–Hardaway, 152 A.D.3d 951, 55 N.Y.S.3d 680 [2017] ). However, respondent has not evidenced that she has, within one year of filing her application for reinstatement, successfully taken the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b] ). Instead, respondent requests a waiver of the MPRE requirement due to her separation from practice since 2007 and the fact that, as a parent living overseas, "it would be financially and logistically cumbersome" for her to take the MPRE.

In order to establish good cause for an MPRE waiver (see Matter of Cooper, 128 A.D.3d 1267, 8 N.Y.S.3d 924 [2015] ), a suspended or disbarred attorney should provide facts that assure this Court that additional MPRE testing would be unnecessary under the circumstances. For example, proof of...