In re Adams

204 A.D.3d 1300

165 N.Y.S.3d 388 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF Temani Me’ Chelle ADAMS, an Attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 5753355)

PM–88–22

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

Calendar Date: December 13, 2021

Decided and Entered: April 21, 2022

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Temani Me'chelle Adams, Dallas, Texas, respondent pro se.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2019. She is also admitted to the practice of law in Texas, where she maintains a law office. By August 2020 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas suspended respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction for a period of six months based upon her false statements, violation of a court order and failure to provide a client with the rate or basis for a fee ( Matter of Adams, 2020 WL 4922330 [N.D. Texas 2020] ). Respondent failed to properly provide notice of her discipline to this Court and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) within 30 days following the imposition of the suspension order as required by Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(d). AGC now moves to impose discipline upon respondent in this state pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.13 as a consequence of her misconduct and resulting discipline by the District Court.¹ Respondent has submitted papers in opposition to the motion, asserting in general terms that there was an infirmity of proof before the District Court establishing her misconduct and that her conduct would not be subject to discipline in New York (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b][2], [3]). AGC has submitted a reply with leave of this Court (see Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.13 [c]).

Pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(c), this Court may discipline an attorney for "misconduct committed in [a] foreign jurisdiction." Upon consideration of the facts, circumstances and documentation before us, we conclude that respondent has not established the defenses that she invokes in opposing the imposition of discipline in this state. Contrary to respondent's argument, our review of the record fails to support her conclusory allegation that there was an infirmity of proof in the District Court proceeding, where she was afforded a full disciplinary hearing (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b][2]). Notably, the detailed findings of fact set forth in the District Court's decision support the conclusion as to respondent's guilt as to the sustained violations (see Matter of Ambe, 182 A.D.3d 695, 696, 121 N.Y.S.3d 423 [2020] ). In any event, despite her claims of unfair treatment before the District Court, respondent acknowledges her deliberate choice to not file an appeal from the suspension order. As for the remaining defense invoked by respondent, we are similarly unpersuaded, given that she presents nothing in support of her bare claim that her conduct would not also be subject to discipline in New York.² Accordingly, we find that respondent's defenses to the motion are not persuasive and, therefore, her misconduct is deemed established.

Turning our attention to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction (see Matter of Cresci, 175 A.D.3d 1670, 1672, 107 N.Y.S.3d 188 [2019] ), we initially note that respondent's misconduct is aggravated by her failure to properly advise this Court and AGC of her discipline by federal authorities in Texas (see Matter of Harmon, 191 A.D.3d 1149, 1152, 142 N.Y.S.3d 631 [2021] ; Matter of Hoines, 185 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 128 N.Y.S.3d 374 [2020] ). Moreover, given the absence of mitigating factors and the seriousness of respondent's misconduct as demonstrated by the established charges concerning respondent's lack of candor in the context of the disciplinary proceedings before the District Court (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standards 6.12, 9.22[f]), her violation of a court order (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 6.22), and her apparent lack of remorse for her misconduct (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22[g]), we conclude that a deviation from the sanction imposed by the District Court is not necessary and that respondent should be...