Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Salis (In re Salis)

178 N.Y.S.3d 66

In the MATTER OF Owolabi M. SALIS, an attorney and counselor-at law:

Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner,

v.Owolabi M. Salis, (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4012886), Respondent.

Motion Nos. 2022-03322 & 2022-03642

Case No. 2013–00285

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

Entered November 29, 2022

Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Kevin M. Doyle, of counsel), for petitioner.

Respondent pro se.

Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Judith J. Gische, Troy K. Webber, Cynthia S. Kern, Julio Rodriguez III, JJ.

Per Curiam

Respondent Owolabi M. Salis was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on June 26, 2002. At all times relevant herein, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

In 2016, respondent was acquitted of criminal charges brought against him in New York County involving the filing of fraudulent immigration petitions. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security referred respondent's conduct to the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC), which led to charges related to the fraudulent filing of hundreds of visa petitions and adjustment of status applications. In 2019, this Court appointed a Referee to hold a hearing on the charges; after motion practice and delays caused by the pandemic, the Referee held a hearing in May 2021. Per respondent's request, the hearing focused solely on liability, with a sanction hearing, if necessary, to follow.

On March 25, 2022, the Referee issued a report sustaining all charges, finding respondent to be in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ) rules 3.1, 3.3(f), 7.1(a)(1), 7.1(f), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h). On May 16, 2022 (two days before the sanction hearing), respondent moved for reargument or reconsideration of the Referee's liability findings, to disaffirm same, and to stay the sanction hearing. On May 18, 2022, the Referee presided over a sanction hearing. Respondent did not appear at the hearing, nor did he phone or email to explain his absence. The Referee found respondent in default and the sanction hearing proceeded.

By June 9 and June 10, 2022 submissions to the Referee, respondent maintained, inter alia, that the sanction hearing should not have convened while his motions for reargument/reconsideration of the Referee's findings were pending with the Court.

On June 22, 2022 (M–2028), this Court denied respondent's motion for reargument or reconsideration of the Referee's liability findings, to disaffirm same, and to stay the sanction hearing. In July 2022, respondent moved for leave to reargue the June 22, 2022 order, which motion was denied in its entirety on August 31, 2022 (M–2894, M–2895). On or about July 25, 2022, the Referee offered to reopen the sanction hearing, which the AGC did not oppose, but respondent failed to respond. By report dated August 17, 2022, the Referee recommended that respondent be disbarred.

The AGC now seeks an order confirming the Referee's liability findings and sanction recommendation and disbarring respondent. By cross motion, respondent opposes and requests, inter alia, "disaffirmation or dismissal" of the Referee's findings.

The Referee's liability findings are well founded and should be confirmed in full. Respondent's myriad of arguments against such, a good number of which have already been considered and rejected by this Court in connection with his prior motions, are without merit. As demonstrated by the record, respondent, over an eight-year period, submitted 1,185 fraudulent and frivolous I–360 petitions, only one of which was granted. In addition, respondent intentionally tried to conceal his identity from immigration authorities by not including the requisite G–28 notice of appearance form with the filings and not signing his name as the preparer thereof. He also failed to denominate his law practice's website as "attorney advertising" (corrected after the AGC brought charges) and engaged in false advertising...