Per Curiam — By order filed November 14, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey disbarred the respondent, effective immediately, struck his name from the roll of attorneys, and permanently restrained and enjoined him from practicing law in that state. The respondent was found to have violated New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (hereinafter RPC) rules 5.5(a)(1) (knowingly practicing law while suspended), 8.1(b) (failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). The New Jersey Disciplinary Proceeding The respondent was admitted to the New Jersey Bar in 2006. On or about June 15, 2016, he was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for failing to cooperate with the Office of Attorney Ethics (hereinafter the OAE) in an investigation concerning his escrow account (hereinafter the June 2016 temporary suspension). The respondent failed to report the June 2016 temporary suspension to the New York Attorney Grievance Committee (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) or this Court. By order dated March 16, 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a final order of discipline suspending the respondent for three years for violating RPC rules 1.4(b) (failing to communicate with client), 5.5(a)(1) (knowingly practicing law while suspended), 8.1(b) (failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) (hereinafter the March 2020 suspension). Again, the respondent failed to notify the Grievance Committee or this Court of the March 2020 suspension in New Jersey. Despite the June 2016 temporary suspension, between June 22, 2016, and January 13, 2020, the respondent continued to serve as counsel to the Eastern American Certified Development Company (hereinafter the EACDC), a New Jersey-based United States Small Business Administration (hereinafter the SBA) certified development company. The EACDC issued small business loans backed by the SBA’s 504 loan program, which targeted communitybased partners. In representing the EACDC, the respondent submitted 16 legal opinions in connection with 16 unique loans. In each opinion, the respondent indicated the validity of the loan closing documents and the qualifications of the borrower and the EACDC for the 504 loan program. The respondent also certified himself as an attorney in good standing with the New Jersey Bar. On April 9, 2020, the SBA learned of the June 2016 temporary suspension and asked the respondent for proof of his reinstatement. On April 10, 2020, the respondent informed the SBA that he was unaware of the March 2020 suspension, and stated that he did not believe that the June 2016 temporary suspension restricted him from closing SBA loans. Thereafter, the SBA filed a grievance complaint against the respondent in New Jersey. The respondent was directed by the OAE through various means to answer SBA’s grievance complaint, which he failed to do. The OAE then charged the respondent for violating RPC rules 5.5(a)(1) (knowingly practicing law while suspended), 8.1(b) (failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). The respondent failed to file an answer to the formal ethics complaint, and the Disciplinary Review Board (hereinafter the DRB) sustained all of the charges, finding that the allegations were deemed admitted. The DRB noted that while some instances of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law overlapped the time period that was the basis of the March 16, 2020 suspension order, the respondent’s misconduct went beyond the time period of the misconduct sanctioned in the March 16, 2020 order. Thus, it warranted further discipline. The DRB concluded that, “Indeed, because respondent’s misconduct underlying the instant matter occurred during the prosecution of [his prior disciplinary matter for the same misconduct], respondent had a heightened awareness of his obligation to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and to refrain from the practice of law while suspended. Despite his heightened awareness of his ethical obligations, respondent’s noncooperation persisted, and he continued to practice law while suspended, until the SBA discovered the circumstances of his temporary suspension. “In short, respondent has displayed complete disregard for his clients and the disciplinary system and has demonstrated total disinterest in maintaining his law license. He has refused to answer the allegations made against him and has continued, for years, to practice law after having been suspended, demonstrating not only indifference for the Rules governing the practice of law in New Jersey, but also contempt for the attorney disciplinary system designed to protect the public. Respondent, thus, is a danger to the public because he is incapable of meeting the standards that must guide all members of the profession.… Because neither the imposition of a temporary nor a threeyear term of suspension have deterred him from committing further misconduct, we determine to recommend that respondent be disbarred in order to effectively protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). By order filed November 14, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted the DRB’s recommendation and disbarred the respondent. Again, the respondent failed to notify the Grievance Committee or this Court of his disbarment in New Jersey. New York Proceeding By order to show cause dated December 20, 2022, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why discipline should not be imposed upon him pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, based on the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by the order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey filed November 14, 2022, by filing an affidavit in accordance with 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) with the Clerk of this Court, with proof of service upon the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts on or before February 9, 2023. Although the respondent was duly served with the order to show cause dated December 20, 2022, he has neither submitted a response thereto nor requested additional time to do so. Therefore, the respondent waived his ability to assert any applicable defense under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) or otherwise put forth any mitigating evidence. Accordingly, based on the findings of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted, and effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. All concur. LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur. ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, the respondent, Young Min Kim, is disbarred, effective immediately, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselorsatlaw; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Young Min Kim, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. §1240.15); and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, the respondent, Young Min Kim, shall desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counseloratlaw before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counseloratlaw; and it is further, ORDERED that if the respondent, Young Min Kim, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f). ENTER: Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
