Per Curiam — The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District commenced a formal disciplinary proceeding against the respondent by serving and filing a notice of petition dated July 15, 2021, and a verified petition dated May 24, 2021. The respondent, through counsel, served and filed a verified answer dated August 10, 2021, largely admitting to the factual specifications contained in the petition, denying the conclusion of law as to charge one in the petition, and conceding charge two. The Grievance Committee filed a statement of disputed and undisputed facts dated October 15, 2021, which was not challenged by the respondent. By decision and order on application dated February 17, 2022, this Court referred the matter to Norma Giffords, as Special Referee, to hear and report. A prehearing conference was conducted on July 13, 2022. A disciplinary hearing was held on four separate dates: September 9, 2022, December 20, 2022, January 30, 2023, and April 11, 2023. By report dated July 5, 2023, the Special Referee sustained both charges in the petition. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as this Court deems just and proper. The respondent cross-moves to disaffirm so much of the Special Referee’s report as sustained charge one and requests that the Court deny the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s findings as to charge one; concedes the Special Referee’s findings that charge two be affirmed; and requests that this Court impose discipline in the form of an admonition or private reprimand, but no greater than a public censure if both charges are sustained. In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained both charges in the petition and both charges are sustained.
The Petition Charge one alleges that the respondent employed coercion, intimidation, or undue influence in entering into sexual relations incident to his professional representation of a client, CL, in violation of rule 1.8(j)(1)(ii) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). In March 2017, the respondent was appointed to represent CL following her indictment on charges of murder in the second degree. In March 2017, CL pleaded not guilty to the murder charge and, pending trial, she was remanded to the custody of the New York City Department of Correction and housed at Rikers Island. Thereafter, representatives of the Women’s Prison Association met with CL and prepared a background narrative of her, which was provided to the respondent. This narrative revealed that CL was a survivor of childhood and adult sexual trafficking and was certified by New York State as a trafficking survivor. Upon receiving this information, the respondent filed a motion seeking CL’s release from custody, which was granted upon the condition that CL live with her mother upon her release. CL agreed to the condition and was released from custody on April 3, 2020. Subsequent to CL’s release from custody, the respondent learned that CL was not living with her mother, in violation of CL’s conditional release. The respondent telephoned CL and sent her text messages. In an exchange of text messages in September 2020, CL sent the respondent pictures of herself in which she was partially clothed. The respondent replied via text that additional pictures should be sent. CL complied with the respondent’s request, to which the respondent replied that he was physically aroused. The respondent and CL agreed to meet at the respondent’s office on September 21, 2020. At this meeting, they discussed the respondent’s filing of a civil suit on CL’s behalf and the terms of a written retainer agreement related to the civil suit. Also at this meeting, CL performed an act of fellatio on the respondent. Charge two alleges that by the aforementioned facts, the respondent engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
