In re Liebowitz, M-2-238

• Decision Date: 30 November 2020
• Docket Number: M-2-238
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Richard LIEBOWITZ, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

503 F.Supp.3d 116

In the MATTER OF Richard LIEBOWITZ, Respondent.

M-2-238

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

Signed November 30, 2020

AMENDED ORDER

Katherine Polk Failla, Chair

This matter comes before the Committee on Grievances for the Southern District of New York (the "Committee") to consider the imposition of discipline against respondent Richard Liebowitz ("Respondent") based upon charges brought against him by the Committee on August 5, 2020 (the "Charges"), to which Respondent responded on September 25, 2020. Given the current status of the investigation as confidential, both the Charges and the investigation underlying their imposition are referenced without detail in this Order.

The full Committee (consisting of Chief Judge McMahon, Judges Castel, Daniels, Nathan, Stanton, Vyskocil, Magistrate Judges Aaron, Cott, and McCarthy, and the undersigned as Chair) has now reviewed Respondent's submission, as well as the record developed during the Committee's investigation. After careful deliberation, the Committee is unanimously of the view that the Charges are strongly supported by the record. What is more, the Committee is unanimously of the view that interim disciplinary measures against Respondent must be put in place immediately.

The preliminary remedy of an interim suspension is available to the Committee in situations where it is appropriate to protect the public from future disciplinary violations of a respondent during the pendency of proceedings before this Committee. The record in this case — which includes Respondent's repeated disregard for orders from this Court and his unwillingness to change despite 19 formal sanctions and scores of other admonishments and warnings from judges across the country — leads the Committee to the view that recurrence is highly likely. In short, in light of the nature and seriousness of the Charges, the strength of the record supporting those Charges, and the risk and danger of recurrence, the Committee concludes that an interim suspension of Respondent from the practice of law before this Court pending final adjudication of the charges against him is warranted. In the exercise of its discretion, the Committee will defer the final adjudication of the charges against Respondent currently pending before this Committee, as well as any other charges this Committee sees fit to bring against Respondent in the future as part of these disciplinary proceedings, until after Respondent has had an opportunity to...