In re Outman
| Decision Date | 23 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 2022-02070 Case No. 2022-02114 |
| Parties | In the Matter of William D. Outman, II, an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, William D. Outman, II, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 3002391) Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on October 26, 1999.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York
(Remi E. Shea, Esq., of counsel), for petitioner.
Respondent pro se.
David Friedman, J.P., Lizbeth González Manuel J. Mendez Bahaati E. Pitt John R. Higgitt, JJ.
Respondent William D. Outman, II, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on October 26, 1999. Respondent's registered address is in Maryland, but this Court retains jurisdiction over him as the admitting Department (Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7 [a][2]).
Respondent consented to disbarment in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI §12. He submitted a sworn affidavit dated June 15, 2021 wherein he acknowledged that he was aware that the District of Columbia's Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) had prepared charges against him alleging professional misconduct in his role as counsel to and personal representative of an estate, which included engaging in reckless misappropriation in violation of District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct rule 1.5(a) - failure to safeguard client property. Respondent also acknowledged that the material facts upon which the allegations of misconduct are predicated were true and that he consented to disbarment because he knew that if disciplinary proceedings based on the alleged misconduct were brought, he could not successfully defend against them. Furthermore, respondent acknowledged that his consent was freely given, he was not subject to coercion or duress, and he was fully aware of the implications of consenting to disbarment.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility filed respondent's June 15, 2021 affidavit, and a report and recommendation with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. On July 15, 2021, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals entered an order disbarring respondent by consent pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI §12 and directed that it be published. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals further directed that pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI §12 (c), respondent's affidavit, which formed the basis for the July 15, 2021 order, was not to be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of the respondent.
The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now moves for an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, finding that respondent has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction, directing him to demonstrate why this Court should not impose discipline based on the misconduct underlying his discipline in the District of Columbia, and disbarring him from the practice of law, or, in the alternative, sanctioning him as this Court deems just and proper. The AGC served a copy of this motion by email with respondent's consent, but he did not respond, or otherwise appear in this proceeding.
In August 2021, respondent provided the AGC with a copy of the June 15, 2021 affidavit submitted to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. In compliance with D.C. Bar Rule XI §12 (c), the AGC asks that the respondent's June 15, 2021 affidavit be sealed.
In a proceeding seeking reciprocal discipline pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, respondent may raise the following defenses: (1) a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard in the foreign jurisdiction constituting a deprivation of due process; (2) an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct; or (3) that the misconduct for which the attorney was disciplined in the foreign jurisdiction does not constitute misconduct in this state.
None of the aforementioned enumerated defenses are available to respondent notwithstanding his failure to assert any defenses because: respondent received notice of the charges asserted against him in the District of Columbia and freely and voluntarily consented to disbarment in response thereto; he admitted that the material facts underlying his alleged reckless misappropriation were true and that he could...
To continue reading
Request your trial