PER CURIAM — By order dated August 13, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York suspended the respondent from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing September 1, 2018. The underlying proceeding involved allegations that the respondent engaged in a relentless campaign to extort a settlement by publicly releasing documents that had been sealed by a federal court, and that in furtherance of that effort, the respondent intentionally defied the orders of three different judges in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York as well as the United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (hereinafter Second Circuit), filed a slew of frivolous motions and lawsuits, and repeatedly accused the courts of illegal and fraudulent conduct.
Underlying Facts The underlying facts, briefly summarized, are as follows: In 1998, Felix Sater was prosecuted for his involvement in a securities fraud and money laundering scheme. On December 10, 1998, Sater pleaded guilty before the Honorable I. Leo Glasser, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to an information charging him with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 USC §1962[c]; hereinafter RICO). As part of his plea, Sater entered into a cooperation agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. Because of the sensitive nature of the information Sater was providing and the potential danger to Sater’s life if his identity were to be revealed, Judge Glasser sealed the action and its docket sheet. A press release in March 2000 announced Sater’s conviction, but not the cooperation agreement. On October 23, 2009, Sater was sentenced and ordered to pay a fine in the sum of $25,000. Sater’s criminal case remained sealed. In 2002, Sater joined Bayrock Group, LLC (hereinafter Bayrock), a real estate development firm. Jody Kriss was Bayrock’s Director of Finance from 2003 to 2008, and Joshua Bernstein was employed there from November 2006 to September 2008. Kriss hired the respondent as his attorney in 2007, and introduced the respondent to Bernstein. During his employment at Bayrock, Bernstein maintained a hard drive that contained copies of all of Bayrock’s files from its servers. The files included emails and documents Sater had sent to his attorney in connection with the criminal proceedings, including his cooperation agreement, a United States Department of Justice financial statement dated December 10, 1998, two proffer agreements, and a presentence investigation report (hereinafter PSR) dated June 28, 2004 (hereinafter collectively the sealed materials). In September 2008, Bernstein’s employment at Bayrock was terminated and he took the hard drive with him. He kept the hard drive and the sealed materials, despite being instructed to return them. Bernstein thereafter turned over the sealed materials to the respondent. In May 2010, the respondent filed a civil RICO complaint against Sater and 29 other defendants in the Southern District of New York on behalf of Kriss and another Bayrock member, alleging a RICO conspiracy involving tax evasion, money laundering, embezzlement, and fraud. The respondent attached portions of the sealed materials as exhibits to the complaint. The complaint also referred to information in the sealed materials, including details about Sater’s cooperation with the government against certain members of organized crime. The case was originally assigned to United States District Judge Naomi R. Buchwald in the Southern District of New York. On May 13, 2010, Sater’s counsel informed Judge Buchwald that the respondent had filed the complaint publicly, and that it had been uploaded by the online news service Courthouse News to its website. That same day, Judge Buchwald directed that the complaint be sealed and enjoined further dissemination of the complaint and exhibits, pending further order of the court. On May 18, 2010, Sater moved for a preliminary injunction before Judge Glasser, requesting that the respondent and his clients be ordered to return the sealed materials to Sater. Judge Glasser issued a temporary restraining order (hereinafter TRO) prohibiting the respondent and his clients from disseminating the sealed materials pending a hearing on the motion. Thereafter, Judge Glasser issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the dissemination of the PSR and its contents, and directed the respondent to return the PSR to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Judge Glasser extended the TRO with respect to the remaining sealed materials, and requested briefing on several issues. The respondent appealed Judge Glasser’s order and the May 18, 2010, TRO to the Second Circuit. On July 16, 2010, as part of his response to the TRO, the respondent filed a signed declaration in which he made a number of accusations against Judge Glasser and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Such accusations included, among others, that Judge Glasser presided over a “star chamber” and “maintained a constitutionally illegal super-sealed docket system of private justice.” On July 20, 2010, Judge Glasser found that the respondent knew that the documents were sealed before he filed them publicly, that Bernstein had obtained the documents wrongfully, and that the respondent “had documents which he knew or perhaps should have known may have been improperly obtained by Bernstein and passed on to him.” Judge Glasser directed the respondent to return the PSR, including all copies, and prohibited its dissemination. Despite Judge Glasser’s explicit injunction in his previous ruling, the respondent continued to maintain copies of the PSR. Judge Glasser issued a further TRO prohibiting the dissemination of any copies. Judge Glasser ordered additional briefing on the sealed materials, and extended the TRO pending his decision. The respondent appealed Judge Glasser’s July 20, 2010, oral order. The May 20, 2010, TRO was extended, and on August 12, 2010, the parties stipulated to a standstill agreement. In letters dated October 18, 2010, and November 9, 2010, the respondent continued to demand money from Sater and the other Southern District defendants, and threatened to disseminate the sealed information if they did not agree to a monetary settlement. On February 14, 2011, upon learning that the respondent still had electronic copies of the PSR, the Second Circuit issued a summary order temporarily enjoining the respondent and anyone else acting in concert with him from distributing publicly or revealing in any way documents or the contents thereof subject to sealing orders before the Eastern and Southern Districts. The Second Circuit also directed Chief Judge Raymond Dearie to assign a district judge “with the limited mandate of implementing and overseeing compliance with our orders and the orders previously entered by Judge Glasser.” Judge Dearie assigned Eastern District Judge Brian M. Cogan. In a March 23, 2011, order, Judge Glasser found that the respondent “had knowingly and intentionally flouted a Court order” by “unilaterally deciding” to disclose information in Sater’s sealed criminal proceeding. The respondent appealed the March 23, 2011, order. Notwithstanding the Second Circuit’s February 14, 2011, summary order, the respondent requested clarification from Judge Cogan about the extent to which he was permitted to disseminate information from the sealed materials. At a hearing before Judge Cogan, the respondent revealed that he had still not destroyed or returned electronic and paper copies of the original PSR and other sealed materials, in violation of Judge Glasser’s July 20, 2010, order. By oral order and subsequent written order on April 4, 2011, Judge Cogan directed the respondent to destroy or return any remaining electronic or paper copies of the PSR and other sealed materials. The respondent appealed Judge Cogan’s orders. On May 13, 2011, Judge Cogan issued an additional written order denying the respondent’s request to release certain information from the sealed materials. The respondent appealed that order. On June 29, 2011, the Second Circuit, among other things, affirmed Judge Glasser’s permanent injunction against dissemination of the PSR, and remanded that portion of the appeal that involved the other sealed documents to Judge Glasser for a final determination. On February 5, 2012, the New York Times published an article entitled By Revealing Man’s Past, Lawyer Tests Court Secrecy, in which the respondent revealed his identity and referred to Sater as John Doe. On February 10, 2012, Sater’s counsel moved by order to show cause to hold the respondent and his attorney, Richard Lerner, in civil contempt on the ground that the respondent violated the Second Circuit’s February 14, 2011, order by revealing Sater’s identity in the article. Judge Cogan directed that a hearing be held on February 27, 2012. The respondent and Lerner moved to quash, and in their motion papers, charged, inter alia, that “Judge Glasser and the Second Circuit have… hid[den] an entire covert justice system operation devoid of constitutional legitimacy.” Judge Cogan referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office to determine whether to prosecute Lerner and the respondent for criminal contempt. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District recused itself, and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York. That investigation was ongoing as of the date of the order of the Committee on Grievances for the United States District Court for the Eastern District (hereinafter the District Court Committee).
