In re Gluck, No. 13 MC 651.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
Writing for the CourtBRIAN M. COGAN, Chair of the Committee on Grievances.
Citation114 F.Supp.3d 57
Parties In the Matter of Joel M. GLUCK, an attorney admitted to practice before this court, Respondent.
Decision Date15 July 2015
Docket NumberNo. 13 MC 651.

114 F.Supp.3d 57

In the Matter of Joel M. GLUCK, an attorney admitted to practice before this court, Respondent.

No. 13 MC 651.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed July 15, 2015.


114 F.Supp.3d 58

Joel M. Gluck, Law Offices of Joel M. Gluck, New York, NY, for Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

BRIAN M. COGAN, Chair of the Committee on Grievances.

Respondent Joel M. Gluck (the "Respondent") disregarded multiple court orders in more than ten federal actions, failed to appropriately communicate with clients and the court and delayed numerous litigations to the detriment of clients and adversaries. Accordingly, the Committee on Grievances for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the "Committee")1 finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent violated the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct (the "Rules of Professional Conduct") and should be disciplined pursuant to Rule 1.5 (Discipline of Attorneys) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York ("Local Rule 1.5").

Respondent asserts that mitigating circumstances—principally, his personal and financial struggles, a heavy caseload and difficult clients—weigh in favor of discipline in the form of a reprimand. The Committee, recognizing the extent of Respondent's financial hardships and his willingness to represent individuals for little or no compensation, finds that Respondent shall be subject to a public reprimand.

BACKGROUND

On August 21, 2013, the Committee issued an Order to Show Cause (the "August 2013 Order") as to why Respondent should not be disciplined pursuant to Rule 1.5 based on his noncompliance with numerous orders issued by Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann ("Judge Mann") in Akman v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of Delaware, Inc., 1:11–CV–03252–MKB–RLM. (Docket Entry No. 1).

Respondent submitted a response to the August 2013 Order on October 16, 2013 ("Respondent's Response"), stating that difficult financial circumstances and a limited office staff impacted his representation in Akman and asking the Committee to refrain from imposing discipline on him beyond a public reprimand. (Docket Entry No. 3). Respondent later submitted a Supplemental Response, dated November 20, 2013 ("Respondent's First Supplemental Response"), informing the Committee that he had paid the sanctions and fees imposed upon him in the Akman action by Judge Mann.

On May 5, 2014, the Committee issued an Order to Show Cause with a Supplemental Statement of Charges (the "May 2014 Order") tracing Respondent's extensive history of misconduct in connection with ten federal actions dating back to January 2005, and instructing Respondent to show cause as to why the Committee should not impose discipline. (Docket Entry No. 5). Respondent responded on August 5, 2014, reiterating that difficult personal and financial circumstances impacted his practice and stating that his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct were unintentional. (Docket Entry No. 9). Respondent again took the position that his conduct warranted discipline in the form of a reprimand.

114 F.Supp.3d 59

The facts relating to Respondent's misconduct have been set forth in the August 2013 and May 2014 Orders and are incorporated by reference herein.

DISCUSSION

I. RESPONDENT'S MISCONDUCT

Local Rule 1.5(b) provides that, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, discipline may be imposed by the Committee if it is found by clear and convincing evidence that:

(5) In connection with activities in this Court, any attorney is found to have engaged in conduct violative of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted from time to time by the Appellate Divisions of the State of New York. In interpreting the Code, in the absence of binding authority from the United States Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, this Court, in the interests of comity and predictability, will give due regard to decisions of the New York Court of Appeals and other New York State
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Geltzer v. Brizinova (In re Brizinova), Case No. 12–42935–ess
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 3 Marzo 2017
    ...deadlines or appear at scheduled court conferences, and did not adequately investigate a matter before bringing suit. In re Gluck , 114 F.Supp.3d 57, 60 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 NY RPC 3.3 applies to conduct before a tribunal, and provides:(a) A lawyer shall......
  • ATTORNEYS, E-DISCOVERY, AND THE CASE FOR 37(G).
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 5, May 2022
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...Dockets Nos. 1 1-070-088405 and 11-070-088422 (2013) (proceedings happened seven months after the misconduct occurred); In re Gluck, 114 F. Supp. 3d 57, 58 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (proceedings happened two years after the misconduct (133) See supra note 128 (providing examples of some of the larges......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Gluck (In re Gluck)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 8 Agosto 2017
    ...of litigation), 3.3 (conduct before a tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 8.4 (misconduct) ( Matter of Gluck, 114 F.Supp.3d 57, 58 [E.D.N.Y. 2015] ).Although the COG's decision specifically directed respondent to disclose its decision to all courts and bars of which......
  • United States v. Bumagin, No. 11–cr–800 (WFK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 15 Julio 2015
    ...in the criminal action against him and to consult with his lawyer in aid of his defense. This action will proceed accordingly.114 F.Supp.3d 57The next status conference in this action is hereby scheduled for Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 12:00 Noon.SO ORDERED.--------Notes:1 On August 9, 201......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Geltzer v. Brizinova (In re Brizinova), Case No. 12–42935–ess
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 3 Marzo 2017
    ...deadlines or appear at scheduled court conferences, and did not adequately investigate a matter before bringing suit. In re Gluck , 114 F.Supp.3d 57, 60 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).New York Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 NY RPC 3.3 applies to conduct before a tribunal, and provides:(a) A lawyer shall......
  • Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Gluck (In re Gluck)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 8 Agosto 2017
    ...of litigation), 3.3 (conduct before a tribunal), 3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), and 8.4 (misconduct) ( Matter of Gluck, 114 F.Supp.3d 57, 58 [E.D.N.Y. 2015] ).Although the COG's decision specifically directed respondent to disclose its decision to all courts and bars of which......
  • United States v. Bumagin, No. 11–cr–800 (WFK).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 15 Julio 2015
    ...in the criminal action against him and to consult with his lawyer in aid of his defense. This action will proceed accordingly.114 F.Supp.3d 57The next status conference in this action is hereby scheduled for Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 12:00 Noon.SO ORDERED.--------Notes:1 On August 9, 201......
  • Williams v. Lutheran Med. Ctr. & 1199 Seiu Health Care Workers E., 12 CV 1881 (SJ) (VVP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 2 Julio 2018
    ...August of 2014, when she retained a different attorney, Locksley O. Wade. (See Dkt. No. 24, Pl.'s Aff. ¶ 2; see also In rePage 4 Gluck, 114 F. Supp. 3d 57, 61 (E.D.N.Y. 2015).) On December 15, 2016, Wade filed the instant Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment. (See Dkt No. 45.) Defe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • ATTORNEYS, E-DISCOVERY, AND THE CASE FOR 37(G).
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 5, May 2022
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...Dockets Nos. 1 1-070-088405 and 11-070-088422 (2013) (proceedings happened seven months after the misconduct occurred); In re Gluck, 114 F. Supp. 3d 57, 58 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (proceedings happened two years after the misconduct (133) See supra note 128 (providing examples of some of the larges......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT