PER CURIAM —The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District served the respondent with a verified petition dated June 9, 2019, containing two charges of professional misconduct predicated on the respondent’s admissions set forth in an October 26, 2015 stipulation, and the findings made by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York, in two orders, both dated October 30, 2015, and a judgment, also dated October 30, 2015, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding commenced by the respondent in that court, under Case No. 8-13-74213, and related adversary proceedings. After a hearing on January 19, 2021, the Special Referee submitted a report dated February 19, 2021. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. The respondent has submitted an affidavit in response, in which he does not oppose the findings of the Special Referee.
The Petition The petition alleges that the respondent knowingly offered or used evidence that he knew to be false in a court proceeding (charge one), in violation of rule 3.3(a)(3) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), and engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice (charge two), in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, based upon the following factual specifications: On August 14, 2013, the respondent commenced a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of New York (hereinafter the Bankruptcy Court) (Case No. 81374213). Thereafter, three adversary proceedings were commenced by creditors against the respondent to determine nondischargeable debts, to wit: International Christian Broadcasting, Inc. v Michael W. Koper, Case No. 1308167; Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. v Michael W. Koper, Case No. 1308168; and International Christian Broadcasting, Inc., and Trinity Christian Center of Santa Ana, Inc. v Michael W. Koper and Brittany Koper, Case No. 1308169. Each adversary complaint sought a determination that debts owed by the respondent to the plaintiff corporations were not dischargeable under the United States Bankruptcy Code, arguing, in sum, that as a corporate officer of the plaintiff corporations, the respondent engaged in fraudulent activities, including the utilization of a corporate charge card for unauthorized personal expenses, embezzling corporate funds, and creating fraudulent corporate documents. On April 2, 2015, the plaintiff corporations filed a “Notice of Motion For Sanctions Concerning Defendant’s Fabrication of Evidence And Perpetration Of A Fraud On The Court” in connection with the three adversary proceedings. The sanctions motion alleged that while an employee of the plaintiff corporations, the respondent fabricated documents and utilized these documents in the bankruptcy proceeding with the intent to defraud the plaintiffs and the court. The respondent opposed the motion. On October 26, 2015, the parties entered into two stipulations resolving the sanctions motion and the underlying adversary complaints. By “Stipulation of Resolution of Sanctions Motion and Stipulation to Judgment in Adversary Proceeding” (hereinafter the sanctions stipulation), the respondent agreed that the allegations set forth in the sanctions motion were “conceded.” In regards to the adversary proceedings, he further agreed that the allegations and debts set forth in the adversary complaints were “conceded and not discharged or dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code.” Following additional proceedings, on October 30, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order approving the sanctions stipulation, as well as an “Order Granting Sanctions Motion On Consent” (hereinafter the sanctions order). The sanctions order stated, as follows:
