Per Curiam Respondent Gerald S. Migdol was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on February 4, 1980. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he has maintained a law office within the First Department. The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) seeks an order striking respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a) and (b) and Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.12(c)(1), on the ground that respondent was convicted of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e), as further discussed below, i.e., bribery in violation of 18 USC § 666(a)(2), and has, therefore, been automatically disbarred. Respondent does not oppose the motion. Respondent’s bribery conviction stems from, among other things, his entering into a quid pro quo agreement in 2019 with the former Lieutenant Governor of New York State, Brian Benjamin, who was then a state senator, under which agreement Benjamin offered to obtain a $50,000 state grant for a nonprofit, charitable organization operated by respondent in exchange for respondent giving him and procuring for him campaign contributions. In aid of this scheme, respondent agreed to misrepresent and conceal the sources of certain contributions to Benjamin’s political campaign, which fraudulent contributions were intended to enable Benjamin’s campaign to procure public matching funds under false pretenses. On April 11, 2022, respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of (i) conspiracy in violation 18 USC § 371; bribery in violation of 18 USC §§ 666(a)(2) and 2; (ii) honest services wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §§ 1343, 1346, and 2; (iii) wire fraud conspiracy in violation of 18 USC § 1349; (iv) aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 USC §§ 1028A(a)(1), 1028A(b), and 2; (iv) falsification of records in violation of 18 USC §§ 1519 and 2; and (v) bank fraud conspiracy in violation of 18 USC § 1349. The AGC advises that as of the date of this motion respondent has not yet been sentenced. The AGC contends that “automatic” disbarment is warranted because respondent’s federal conviction for bribery under 18 USC § 666(a)(2) is analogous to the New York class D felony of bribery in the third degree (Penal Law § 200.00). 18 USC § 666(a)(2) provides:
