In re Sklar

• Decision Date: 03 September 2020
• Docket Number: PM-113-20
• Citation: 186 A.D.3d 1773,130 N.Y.S.3d 859
• Parties: In the Matter of Lori Jo SKLAR, a Suspended Attorney.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

186 A.D.3d 1773
130 N.Y.S.3d 859

In the Matter of Lori Jo SKLAR, a Suspended Attorney.

PM-113-20

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

Calendar Date: July 6, 2020
Decided and Entered: September 3, 2020

130 N.Y.S.3d 860

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Lori Jo Sklar, Minnetonka, Minnesota, respondent pro se.

Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Mulvey, Devine and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994 and currently lists a business address in Minnetonka, Minnesota with the Office of Court Administration. In March 2017, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year by the Supreme Court of California, with the execution of such suspension stayed for all but the first 30 days. Respondent's suspension arose from sustained allegations that she had engaged in misleading conduct in connection with her application for counsel fees in a class action, and had disregarded two separate court orders (see Matter of Sklar on Discipline , 2017 Cal LEXIS 2324 [Cal 2017], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 190, 199 L.Ed.2d 128 [2017] ; see also Matter of Sklar , 2016 WL 6462150 [Rev. Dept., Cal Bar Ct. 2016] ). Thereafter, upon motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC), this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law for a three-month period due to her California misconduct ( Matter of Sklar , 167 A.D.3d 1142, 89 N.Y.S.3d 467 [2018], appeal dismissed and lv. denied 34 N.Y.3d 972, 111 N.Y.S.3d 577, 135 N.E.3d 757 [2019] ).

Respondent now moves for, in succession, her reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 ; Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept. [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] ) and for leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 ). AGC has submitted an affidavit opposing respondent's motion in its entirety, and respondent has submitted a supplemental affidavit addressing

130 N.Y.S.3d 861

AGC's points in opposition and further supplementing the responses in her original affidavit.

Notably, having been suspended by this Court for a three-month period, respondent was initially entitled to avail herself of the less onerous forms and procedures applicable to attorneys suspended for a period of less than six months (see Matter of Jing Tan , 164 A.D.3d 1515, 1517–1518, 82 N.Y.S.3d 272 [2018] ). Owing to her delay in moving for her reinstatement, however, respondent must now meet the procedural requirements for those attorneys serving suspensions greater than six months, which, among other things, requires that she submit proof that she successfully passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) within one year of the date of her motion for reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Nenninger] , 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1317–1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2020] ; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b] ). However, as part of her motion, respondent asks this Court to waive the MPRE requirement, contending, in part, that her simultaneous request for resignation obviates the need for additional ethical retraining (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [D'Alessandro] , 177 A.D.3d 1243, 1244, 114 N.Y.S.3d 512 [2019] ; see also Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova passed the Multistate Professional Responsibilia] , 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [2017] ).

Respondent's request bears similarity to other recently approved applications seeking a waiver of the MPRE requirement justified on similar grounds. However, we note that the prior cases where we have approved such relief involved attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions arising from registration delinquencies ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Thurston] , 186 A.D.3d 963, 964–65, 129 N.Y.S.3d 541, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 04624, *1 [2020]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Menar] , 185 A.D.3d 1200, 1202, 127 N.Y.S.3d 605 [2020] ; Matter...