In re Frank

• Decision Date: 19 January 2017
• Parties: In the Matter of Gloria Heidi FRANK, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2035178).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

146 A.D.3d 1228

46 N.Y.S.3d 434 (Mem)

2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00377

In the Matter of Gloria Heidi FRANK, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2035178).

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

Jan. 19, 2017.

Gloria Heidi Frank, Washington, DC, pro se.

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

Before: McCARTHY, J.P., EGAN JR., LYNCH, ROSE and MULVEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Gloria Heidi Frank was admitted to practice by this Court in 1986 and lists a business address in Washington, DC with the Office of Court Administration. By affidavit sworn to July 6, 2016, Frank now seeks leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons (see Uniform Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a] ). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposes the application by correspondence from its Chief Attorney.

Frank's application must be denied. Judiciary Law § 468–a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 each require that attorneys admitted to practice in New York file a biennial registration statement, and attendant fee, with the Office of Court Administration. Judiciary Law § 468–a(5) directly states that the failure to duly register "shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be referred to the appropriate appellate division ... for disciplinary action" (see Benjamin v. Koeppel, 85 N.Y.2d 549, 556, 626 N.Y.S.2d 982, 650 N.E.2d 829 [1995] ; see also Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [h] ). Further, the Rules of Professional Conduct explicitly define conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice as attorney misconduct (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d] ), and this Court has repeatedly and consistently held that failure to comply with the registration requirements is professional misconduct warranting discipline (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1021 [2014]; Matter of Arms, 251 A.D.2d 743, 743–744, 674 N.Y.S.2d 156 [1998] ; Matter of Ryan, 238 A.D.2d 713, 713–714, 656 N.Y.S.2d 444 [1997] ; Matter of Farley, 205 A.D.2d 874, 874–875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 458 [1994] ).

As noted by AGC, Frank has failed to abide by the attorney registration requirements for the biennial period beginning in 2016. Accordingly, we find that she is ineligible for nondisciplinary resignation and deny her application. We further hold that any future application by Frank for leave to resign for nondisciplinary...