In re Mcardle

167 A.D.3d 1223

87 N.Y.S.3d 910 (Mem)

In the MATTER OF Paul Joseph MCARDLE, an Attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 4852877)

D-165-18

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

Calendar Date: October 31, 2018

Decided and Entered: December 13, 2018

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Anna E. Remet of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Paul Joseph McArdle, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, respondent pro se.

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2010. He currently lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration in Pennsylvania, where he was admitted in 1981.

By November 2016 order, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended respondent for one year and one day due to a determination that he had engaged in a series of frivolous and repetitious lawsuits within that state in violation of three separate provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania thereafter imposed an identical sanction upon respondent based upon that same misconduct. Now, by order to show cause, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) moves to impose discipline upon respondent in New York due to the findings of misconduct in Pennsylvania (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 ; Rules of the App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.13 ). Respondent opposes AGC's motion, arguing in broad terms that he was deprived of due process in the Pennsylvania disciplinary proceedings and that there was an infirmity of proof establishing his misconduct in that state (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b][1], [2] ). AGC has replied with leave of the Court.

Upon consideration of the facts, circumstances and documentation before us, we conclude that respondent has not established any of the available defenses to the imposition of discipline in this state (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 ). Significantly, respondent failed to, among other things, offer anything other than conclusory allegations of unfairness and lack of due process with respect to the lengthy Pennsylvania disciplinary proceedings (see e.g. Matter of Loigman, 153 A.D.3d 1091, 1092, 57 N.Y.S.3d 442 [2017] ; Matter of Torchia, 151 A.D.3d 1369, 57 N.Y.S.3d 244 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 911, 2018 WL 773190 [2018] ; Matter of Vega, 147 A.D.3d 1196, 1197, 47 N.Y.S.3d 170 [2017] ). We are likewise not persuaded that the Pennsylvania disciplinary authorities presented insufficient evidence of his misconduct in that state. To the contrary, the Pennsylvania determination is supported by detailed findings establishing respondent's misconduct, and respondent has exhausted all available avenues of appeal. Accordingly, we find respondent's misconduct established, and we grant AGC's motion (see Matter of Torchia, 151 A.D.3d at 1370, 57 N.Y.S.3d 244 ).

Turning to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction, we are mindful of respondent's persistent refusal to acknowledge the impropriety of his conduct and insistence that the actions of the Pennsylvania courts and disciplinary authorities were prompted by corrupt motives (see e.g. Matter of Davey, 111 A.D.3d 207, 973 N.Y.S.2d 67 [2013] ). Accordingly, taking note of the discipline imposed in Pennsylvania, we conclude, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances presented and in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of...