A Conditional Plea for a Lawyer May Be Unconditionally Problematic
What happens when an attorney takes a conditional plea to a misdemeanor crime, with the agreement of the court and prosecution that after successful completion of the conditions imposed, the attorney will be able to withdraw his or her plea and re-plead to a violation of law and not a crime?
August 25, 2021 at 11:00 AM
7 minute read
It is indisputable that an attorney must respect and follow the law. In the case of the criminal law, an attorney convicted of a crime can be professionally disciplined even where the criminality does not involve the practice of law. Matter of Dolphin, 240 N.Y. 89 (1925); Matter of Nixon, 385 N.Y.S.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976).
In New York, an attorney who takes a plea to a misdemeanor is deemed convicted at time of plea or verdict. NY CPL 1.20(13). An attorney convicted of a crime must report that conviction to the appropriate grievance committee within 30 days of the conviction. Failure to report is an act of professional discipline. 22 NYCRR 1240.12(a) [Rules For Attorney Disciplinary Matters]; Judiciary Law 90(4)(c).
Subsection (b) of 22 NYCRR 1240.12 states that upon receipt of the notice of conviction, "the Committee shall investigate the matter …" (emphasis added). Unless the crime is of a type where a non-disciplinary Letter of Advisement is warranted, which in our experience is a rare result, the investigation will result in some level of professional discipline of the attorney. A Committee can investigate and decide on an appropriate sanction itself and issue a Letter of Admonition (22 NYCRR 1240.7(d)(2)(v)). The Admonition is not public, but it is professional discipline. Alternatively, the Committee can commence a formal Disciplinary Proceeding, which likely will result in some level of public discipline (22 NYCRR 1240.8). Public discipline can be a public censure, a period of suspension, or disbarment. 22 NYCRR 1240.8(b) Should the criminal conduct be such that it is adjudged to be "immediately threatening the public interest," or a "Serious Crime" as defined by Judiciary Law 90(4)(d), the attorney could be suspended on an interim basis pending a final determination. 22 NYCRR 1240.9; Jud. Law 90.4(f).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute read'A Sea Change': NY Equal Rights Measure May Prompt Flurry of Lawsuits if Approved by Voters
Walking the AI Tightrope: Communicating Innovation Without Undermining Core Values
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250