In re Lynum

208 A.D.3d 1449

174 N.Y.S.3d 486

In the MATTER OF Edward J. LYNUM, a Suspended Attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 5041363)

PM-152-22

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

Calendar Date: June 6, 2022

Decided and Entered: September 8, 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.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2012. He is also admitted in the District of Columbia and in his home state of Florida, where he most recently listed a business address with the Office of Court Administration. In November 2019, as a result of his noncompliance with a subpoena to testify before Florida disciplinary authorities, respondent was held in contempt of court by the Supreme Court of Florida and suspended pending his compliance with said subpoena ( Florida Bar v. Lynum , 2019 WL 5846910 [Fla. 2019] ). In an unrelated disciplinary matter, respondent was again suspended by March 2020 order of the Supreme Court of Florida for 180 days based upon his discourteous, dishonest and disrespectful conduct toward members of the bench and bar ( Florida Bar v. Lynum , 2020 WL 1061266 [Fla. 2020] ). In August 2020, this Court granted the uncontested motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) to suspend respondent based upon his aforementioned Florida misconduct (186 A.D.3d 970, 127 N.Y.S.3d 815 [3d Dept. 2020] ; see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [a]; Rules of the App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.13 ). Respondent remains suspended in this State.

In January 2021, respondent was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court of Florida based upon uncontested allegations of his continued and escalating pattern of disparaging statements and threatening behavior against members of the bench and bar, including statements made on publicly available social media platforms ( Florida Bar v. Lynum , 2021 WL 209198 [Fla. 2021] ). In August 2021, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disbarred respondent based upon his Florida misconduct. AGC now moves to discipline respondent based upon his Florida misconduct underlying his 2021 disbarment in that state (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [a]; Rules of the App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.13 ). Respondent has not responded to the motion.

Pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.13, this Court may discipline an attorney based upon his or her established professional misconduct in a foreign jurisdiction. Although attorneys in such a proceeding may raise certain defenses (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]), respondent waived said defenses here by failing to respond to AGC's motion (see Matter of Blaney , 186 A.D.3d 1777, 1778, 127 N.Y.S.3d 928 [3d Dept. 2020] ; Matter of McCarthy , 166 A.D.3d 1465, 1466, 89 N.Y.S.3d 407 [3d Dept. 2018] ; Matter of Sicklinger , 166 A.D.3d 1205, 1206, 86 N.Y.S.3d 667 [3d Dept. 2018] ).¹ We thus find the misconduct established (see Matter of Campbell , 160 A.D.3d 1200, 1201, 73 N.Y.S.3d 797 [3d Dept. 2018] ).

As to the appropriate disciplinary sanction, the uncontested findings reflect respondent's highly concerning and escalating pattern of threatening, disparaging and unprofessional conduct directed at the bench and bar in the courtroom and on publicly available social media platforms (see e.g. Matter of Krapacs , 189 A.D.3d 1962, 1962–1963, 138 N.Y.S.3d 290 [3d Dept. 2020] ; Matter of Spolter , 128 A.D.3d 112, 113, 6 N.Y.S.3d 663 [2d Dept. 2015] ). Notably, many of respondent's statements on social media not only impugned the personal and professional integrity of certain members of the judiciary, but also encouraged the public to engage in violent acts against these individuals, as well as against the opposing counsel in his divorce proceedings — whose home address he had posted on the Internet. Further, by failing to participate in this disciplinary proceeding, respondent has not only failed to demonstrate any mitigating circumstances, but also evinces his lack of interest in his fate as an attorney in this state. We further note respondent's failure to express remorse or acknowledge the impropriety of his misconduct at any point in this or the underlying proceedings. Additional aggravating factors include his failure to notify this Court and AGC of his 2021 disbarments in Florida and the District of Columbia in violation of Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(d) (see Matter of Powers , 181 A.D.3d 1149, 1149, 118 N.Y.S.3d 451 [3d Dept. 2020] ), as well as his noncompliance with this State's attorney registration requirements for the 2020–2021 and 2022–2023 biennial registration periods (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 185 A.D.3d 1373, 1374, 126 N.Y.S.3d 685 [3d Dept. 2020] ). In view of the record as a whole (see generally Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b][2]), we find that respondent's continued pattern of egregious behavior does not warrant a deviation from the severity of his Florida disciplinary sanction. Accordingly, in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the legal profession and deter others from committing similar misconduct, respondent should be disbarred in this state (see Matter of Krapacs , 189 A.D.3d at 1963–1964, 138 N.Y.S.3d 290 ; Matter of Spolter , 128 A.D.3d at 113, 6 N.Y.S.3d 663 ; Matter...