In re Zankowski

208 A.D.3d 1495

174 N.Y.S.3d 505

In the MATTER OF Doreen Marie ZANKOWSKI, an Attorney.

(Attorney Registration No. 4446464)

PM–162–22

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

Calendar Date: May 16, 2022

Decided and Entered: September 15, 2022

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Doreen Marie Zankowski, Boxford, Massachusetts, respondent pro se.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2006. She is also admitted to the practice of law in Massachusetts, where she lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration. By March 2021 order, a full panel of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County suspended respondent from the practice of law for two years based upon findings that she had violated three provisions of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct by, among other things, dishonestly and "intentionally bill[ing multiple clients] for services that were not rendered" ( Matter of Zankowski, 487 Mass. 140, 141, 164 N.E.3d 898 [2021] ).¹ Respondent remains so suspended in Massachusetts to date. Notably, she failed to provide notice to this Court and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) within 30 days following the imposition of her Massachusetts discipline 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 in Massachusetts.² Respondent apologizes for her failure to provide the required notice in her submission in response and requests that any suspension ordered by this Court be imposed retroactively, nunc pro tunc, so that it would expire at the same time as her Massachusetts suspension in December 2022. AGC, by leave of this Court (see Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.13 [c]), has submitted a reply opposing respondent's request that any sanction be imposed retroactively and respondent, by permission, has submitted a surreply.

Initially, in light of the fact that respondent raises no substantive defenses to the imposition of discipline in this state as set forth in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(b), we grant AGC's motion and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction (see Matter of Bailey, 177 A.D.3d 1079, 1080, 112 N.Y.S.3d 340 [3d Dept. 2019] ; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b][2]). To that end, we take note of the serious nature of respondent's misconduct in Massachusetts, which is aggravated by both her failure to properly advise this Court and AGC of her discipline in that state (see Matter of Harmon, 191 A.D.3d 1149, 1152, 142 N.Y.S.3d 631 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Hoines, 185 A.D.3d 1349, 1350, 128 N.Y.S.3d 374 [3d Dept. 2020] ) and Office of Court Administration records demonstrating that her attorney registration is currently delinquent, inasmuch as she has failed to timely register for the biennial period beginning in 2022 (see Rules of the Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1[c]; see also Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Roberts], 197 A.D.3d 815, 815–816, 148 N.Y.S.3d 927 [3d Dept. 2021] ).

We also observe the absence of any substantive mitigating factors presented for our review and the presence of further matters in aggravation, such as the findings of respondent's lack of candor in the context of the Massachusetts disciplinary proceedings (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22[f]), her lack of remorse for her misconduct (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22[g]), and her substantial experience in the practice of law (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22[i]). Accordingly, we conclude that a sanction consistent with the two-year suspension from the practice of law imposed in Massachusetts is appropriate in this state (see e.g. Matter of Rosenthal, 57 A.D.3d 1085, 1086, 868 N.Y.S.2d 820 [3d Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 739, 876 N.Y.S.2d 347, 904 N.E.2d 501 [2009], cert denied 558 U.S. 820, 130 S.Ct. 90, 175 L.Ed.2d 29 [2009] ; Matter of Larsen, 50 A.D.3d 41, 47, 849 N.Y.S.2d 560 [1st Dept. 2008] ; see generally Matter of Ziankovich, 192 A.D.3d 180, 184–185, 139 N.Y.S.3d 128 [1st Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Kachroo, 180 A.D.3d 183, 188, 116 N.Y.S.3d 282 [1st Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 917, 2020 WL 6789282 [2020] ). Finally, inasmuch as we perceive no basis in the record to grant respondent's request for a retroactive sanction, said suspension will be effective immediately.

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted; and it is...