In re Tan, D-115-18

• Decision Date: 13 September 2018
• Docket Number: D-115-18
• Citation: 82 N.Y.S.3d 667,164 A.D.3d 1537
• Parties: In the MATTER OF Lincoln Lim TAN Jr., an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 4970240)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

164 A.D.3d 1537

82 N.Y.S.3d 667

In the MATTER OF Lincoln Lim TAN Jr., an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 4970240)

D-115-18

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

Calendar Date: August 20, 2018

Decided and Entered: September 13, 2018

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Michael G. Gaynor of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Lincoln Lim Tan Jr., Jersey City, New Jersey, respondent pro se.

Before: Garry, P.J., Devine, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2011. He presently lists a New Jersey business address with the Office of Court Administration.

Respondent is currently the subject of an investigation of alleged professional misconduct by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) stemming from AGC's receipt of a complaint related to respondent's attorney escrow account. Respondent denied any wrongdoing and provided certain records requested by AGC. Respondent was thereafter served by AGC with a notice to appear for an examination on a scheduled date with certain additional documentation. Respondent acknowledged receipt of said notice. However, respondent later sent a letter to AGC asserting that he was opposed to appearing at the examination and, in any event, could not attend because of a longstanding medical appointment. AGC was unable to contact respondent directly concerning this matter, and respondent subsequently failed to appear for the scheduled examination or provide any further documentation.

Now, by order to show cause returnable August 20, 2018, AGC moves for an order pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(1) and (3) suspending respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of its investigation. Respondent opposes the motion, claiming, among other things, that he has already sufficiently complied with AGC's demands and, therefore, AGC's request for an examination and the production of further records demonstrates AGC's bias against him and is a "violation of [his] rights."

Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a) provides that a respondent may be suspended during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation upon a showing that he or she "has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest." Here, the record contains clear evidence establishing respondent's refusal to fully cooperate with AGC's lawful demands for the production of records and for his appearance at an examination (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a][1], [3]; see also Matter of Yu , 164 A.D.3d 1009, 1009, 77 N.Y.S.3d 918, 919 [2018] ; Matter of Humphrey , 151 A.D.3d 1539, 1540, 54 N.Y.S.3d 882 [2017] ; Matter of Reynolds , 151 A.D.3d 1542, 1542–1543, 54 N.Y.S.3d 884 [2017] ). Contrary to respondent's argument, the requirement that all attorneys licensed to practice in this state fully cooperate in a grievance committee investigation is not limited by that attorney's view of what the scope of such inquiries should be. As a consequence, we find that respondent's defiant conduct herein immediately threatens the public interest (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a] ) and "clearly imperils the effectiveness of the attorney disciplinary system" ( Matter of Yu , 77 N.Y.S.3d at 919 ). Accordingly, we grant AGC's motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law during the pendency of AGC's investigation and until further order of this Court (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.9 [a]; see also ...