Comm. on Prof'l Standards v. Narayanan (In re Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-A)

202 A.D.3d 1269

162 N.Y.S.3d 220

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

Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner;

v.Mala S. Narayanan, Also Known as Mala Sundar, Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 2736205)

PM–25–22

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

Calendar Date: December 20, 2021

Decided and Entered: February 10, 2022

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

Mala Sundar, Ewing, New Jersey, respondent pro se.

Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1996 and is also admitted in New Jersey, where she presently serves as the Presiding Judge of the Tax Court of New Jersey. She was suspended from the practice of law in this state by January 2014 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her failure to comply with her attorney registration obligations from 2008 onward ( 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1044, 979 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2014] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5] ; Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d]).

After curing her registration delinquency in May 2021 and registering retroactively as retired, respondent now moves for her 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 her leave to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.22 ). The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) advises that it opposes respondent's motion,¹ and respondent has submitted reply correspondence addressing AGC's concerns.

It is initially noted that respondent seeks to avail herself of an expedited procedure previously approved by this Court wherein she seeks her reinstatement to the practice of law in this state and contemporaneously requests leave to resign for nondisciplinary reasons (see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Thurston], 186 A.D.3d 963, 129 N.Y.S.3d 541 [2020] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Menar] , 185 A.D.3d 1200, 127 N.Y.S.3d 605 [2020] ). Turning first to the reinstatement issue, we find that respondent's application satisfies the threshold requirement of a sworn affidavit in the proper form provided for in appendix C of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, as is required for all attorneys suspended for longer than six months. As for other threshold documentation required to be submitted in support of her application, we find that respondent's submissions are sufficient to support a waiver of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination requirement applicable to all attorneys – even those certified as retired – who seek reinstatement from suspensions of more than six months (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Fernando], 198 A.D.3d 1096, 155 N.Y.S.3d 469 [2021] ).

We further conclude that respondent's submission establishes by clear and convincing evidence that she has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions in this state (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Pastor], 194 A.D.3d 1307, 1309, 147 N.Y.S.3d 256 [2021] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Thompson], 185 A.D.3d 1379, 1381, 128 N.Y.S.3d 689 [2020] ; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). Specifically, respondent has established her compliance with the order of suspension, as she attests to having never practiced in this state, which effectively negates any obligation to contact any client, return client property or return any fees. We also find that respondent has clearly demonstrated the requisite character and fitness for reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Pratt], 186 A.D.3d 965, 129 N.Y.S.3d 538 [2020] ). As for the remainder of the applicable test, given respondent's application submissions and the nature of her misconduct, which is of limited severity (see generally Matter of Sklar, 186 A.D.3d 1773, 1775, 130 N.Y.S.3d 859 [2020] ), we find that respondent's reinstatement and ability to resign from the New York bar with an otherwise clean disciplinary history would be in the public interest (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [D'Alessandro], 177 A.D.3d 1243, 1245, 114 N.Y.S.3d 512 [2019] ). Accordingly, we gra...