In re Ugwuonye
| Docket Number | PM-174-22 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2022 |
| Citation | 209 A.D.3d 1254,176 N.Y.S.3d 379 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF Ephraim Chukwuemeka UGWUONYE, a Suspended Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2681823) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Fisher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1995 and was also admitted in Maryland, the District of Columbia and before the U.S. Tax Court. By December 2008 order of this Court, respondent was suspended from practice for a 90–day term ( Matter of Ugwuonye , 57 A.D.3d 1206, 868 N.Y.S.2d 562 [3d Dept. 2008] ) based upon his similar suspension in Maryland arising from his violation of numerous provisions of the Maryland Rules of Professional Misconduct ( Attorney Grievance Commn. of Maryland v. Ugwuonye , 405 Md. 351, 952 A.2d 226 [2008] ). Respondent has never sought to be reinstated in New York and his suspension by this Court therefore remains extant.
The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) now advises that, by May 2019 order, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has disbarred respondent for, among other things, recklessly misappropriating client funds in three separate matters, commingling personal funds with entrusted funds and writing numerous checks to himself drawn upon his IOLTA (Interest on Lawyers' Trust Account) ( Matter of Ugwuonye , 207 A.3d 173 [D.C. 2019] ). As a consequence of his disbarment in that jurisdiction , respondent was also disbarred in Maryland by December 2019 order ( Attorney Grievance Commn. of Maryland v. Ugwuonye , 466 Md. 472, 221 A.3d 965 [2019] ) and by the U.S. Tax Court in July 2019.1 Significantly, respondent failed to provide notice of any of these disciplinary orders to either this Court or AGC as required by Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(d).
Accordingly, AGC now moves, by order to show cause supported by affirmation of counsel, to impose discipline upon respondent in this state pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(a) and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.13 as the result of his discipline in the District of Columbia. Respondent has not appeared or responded to the motion to date. Accordingly, we find that he has waived his available defenses and that his misconduct is established (see Matter of Moses , 206 A.D.3d 1440, 1441, 170 N.Y.S.3d 363 [3d Dept. 2022] ).
Turning to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction for respondent's misconduct, we note that, pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 (c), this Court is authorized to discipline an attorney for "misconduct committed in [a] foreign jurisdiction." Notably, the sanction of disbarment is consistent with New York precedent regarding similar misconduct (see e.g. Matter of Outman , 209 A.D.3d 42, 43, 173 N.Y.S.3d 7 [1st Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Clarke , 190 A.D.3d 57, 59, 136 N.Y.S.3d 249 [1st Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Malyszek , 171 A.D.3d 1445, 1445, 97 N.Y.S.3d 543 [3d Dept. 2019] ). In that regard, given respondent's failure to participate in these proceedings, he has presented no mitigating factors for our consideration that might merit a deviation from the seriousness of the discipline imposed in the District of Columbia (see Matter of McSwiggan , 169 A.D.3d 1248, 1250, 92 N.Y.S.3d 922 [3d Dept. 2019] ). Moreover, respondent's misconduct is further aggravated by, among other factors, his extant suspension in this state since 2008, his failure to properly report his District of Columbia disbarment and other disciplinary orders, his default in responding to AGC's motion and his longstanding registration delinquency in this state, as demonstrated by Office of Court Administration records confirming that he has failed to timely register for six biennial periods beginning in 2011 (see Rules of the Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [c]; see also Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Roberts ], 197 A.D.3d 815, 148 N.Y.S.3d 927 [3d Dept. 2021] ).
Accordingly, given the seriousness of respondent's unchallenged professional misconduct in the District of Columbia and his demonstrated disregard for his fate as an attorney in New York (see Matter of McSwiggan...
To continue reading
Request your trial