Attorney Grievance Comm. for the Third Judicial Dep't v. Pavlov (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A)

204 A.D.3d 1302

164 N.Y.S.3d 900 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A.

Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner;

v.William Michelson Pavlov, Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 2193985)

PM–89–22

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

Calendar Date: January 3, 2022

Decided and Entered: April 21, 2022

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

William Michelson Pavlov, Deland, Florida, respondent pro se.

Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1988 and is also admitted in Texas and in Florida, where he currently resides and practices immigration law. By May 2019 order of this Court, respondent was suspended from the practice of law indefinitely for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a since the 2012–2013 biennial period ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1746, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 [2019] ). Having cured his outstanding registration delinquency in August 2020, respondent now moves for his reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]) and, in succession, for an order granting him leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 ). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) has opposed respondent's successive motions.

We first turn to the procedural requirements applicable to respondent, an attorney who has been suspended for longer than six months seeking his reinstatement and, in succession, his nondisciplinary resignation. To this end, respondent has not submitted proof that he has passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) within one year prior to applying for reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Instead, respondent seeks a waiver of the MPRE requirement, contending that such a waiver is appropriate based upon his simultaneous request to resign from the practice of law in this state (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Menar], 185 A.D.3d 1200, 1202, 127 N.Y.S.3d 605 [2020] ; 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] ). However, respondent has not submitted the appropriate affidavit in support of that part of his motion seeking his nondisciplinary resignation (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 [a]; part 1240, appendix E). We therefore find that respondent is not entitled to nondisciplinary resignation and, moreover, we do not place any consideration on his stated intent to resign as justification for his MPRE waiver request (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [D'Alessandro], 169 A.D.3d 1349, 1350–1351, 95 N.Y.S.3d 371 [2019] ).

Nonetheless, we may still consider whether "good cause" for the waiver is evident as part of his application for reinstatement ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [2017] ). To that end, we note that respondent seeks his reinstatement from a suspension arising from a registration delinquency as opposed to more significant misconduct (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Pratt], 186 A.D.3d 965, 967, 129 N.Y.S.3d 538 [2020] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Thurston], 186 A.D.3d 963, 964, 129 N.Y.S.3d 541 [2020] ; cf. Matter of Sklar, 186 A.D.3d 1773, 1775, 130 N.Y.S.3d 859 [2020] ). Moreover, respondent is in good standing in Florida and in Texas, and he provides proof that he is compliant with the continuing legal education requirements of those jurisdictions (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Sauer], 178 A.D.3d 1191, 1193, 114 N.Y.S.3d 523 [2019] ). Taking these factors into account, we find that respondent's circumstances justify a waiver of the MPRE requirement.

Turning to the merits of his motion, we find that respondent has satisfied the substantive requirements applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions in this state (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Maurits], 169 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 93 N.Y.S.3d 717 [2019] ; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). Respondent has demonstrated his compliance with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court governing the conduct of suspended...