23-872 (L) In re Raphael Weitzman
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of September, two thousand twenty-four.
Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. LEWIS J. LIMAN, District Judge.* __________________________________________
COMMITTEE ON GRIEVANCES FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v. 23-872 (L); 23-7556 (CON)
RAPHAEL WEITZMAN,
Respondent-Appellant.
__________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE: Evan R. Chesler, Brittany L Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY.
* Judge Lewis J. Liman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Raphael Weitzman, Weitzman Law Offices, L.L.C., New York, NY.
Appeal from the September 7, 2022, May 8, 2023, and October 16, 2023 orders of the
Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Failla, J., Chair, Committee on Grievances S.D.N.Y.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the orders of the Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York are AFFIRMED.
Respondent-Appellant Raphael Weitzman, an attorney, appeals from three orders of the
Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (“the Committee”) related to his handling of $1.5 million in disputed settlement funds. In
its September 7, 2022 order, the Committee adopted a Magistrate Judge’s Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that Weitzman violated the New York Rules of Professional
Conduct by commingling client funds, failing to maintain settlement funds in a separate account,
failing to maintain proper disbursement records, and making false statements to a tribunal. On
May 8, 2023, the Committee suspended Weitzman from practicing law in the Southern District of
New York for two years. In an October 16, 2023 order, the Committee denied Weitzman’s
motion to modify or set aside the earlier orders and to disqualify the Committee’s counsel. We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, record of prior proceedings, and issues
on appeal.
2 On appeal, Weitzman argues that the Committee’s orders should be vacated because of
alleged procedural issues with its investigation, lack of clear and convincing evidence, and
excessive sanctions. These arguments are meritless.
This Court reviews the Committee’s disciplinary orders for abuse of discretion—that is,
“if its imposition of sanctions was based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence, or cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In
re Peters, 642 F.3d 381, 384 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). Although
we have applied a more exacting inquiry when the same judge acts as accuser, fact finder, and
sentencer, id., the “ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard” applies here because different judges
and outside counsel referred, investigated, and disciplined Weitzman, see In re Demetriades, 58
F.4th 37, 45 n.2 (2d Cir. 2023).
First, we discern no due-process violations in the Committee’s investigation. Weitzman
argues that the investigation was “flawed” and “denied [him] due process,” but the record belies
that claim. Weitzman complains that he was “prohibited from presenting evidence” or
responding at an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s Br. at 31, but the Magistrate Judge clearly invited
him to do so, see App’x 1336-37. Weitzman’s other complaints fare no better, and he fails to
demonstrate that “the procedure . . . was so lacking . . . in opportunity to be heard as to constitute
a deprivation of due process.” In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 1994). We thus reject
Weitzman’s challenge to the Committee’s September 7, 2022 order adopting the R&R’s
investigative findings.
Weitzman’s evidentiary challenges also fail. He argues that the Committee “failed to
substantiate the charges by . . . clear and convincing evidence” in adopting the R&R and imposing
3 discipline. To the contrary, the R&R’s findings are supported by ample evidence of misconduct.
The record reflects that Weitzman withdrew $1.5 million from his client’s escrow account in
March and then represented to the court that he disbursed those funds in November. The
Committee appropriately relied on this record of misconduct to find by clear and convincing
evidence that Weitzman violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in its September 7, 2022 order.
Second, the Committee acted well within its discretion in suspending Weitzman from
practicing in the district for two years. Weitzman argues that the Committee erroneously rejected
his mitigating factors in its May 8, 2023 sanctions order. But the Committee reasonably found
those factors insignificant in light of the aggravating circumstances—including Weitzman’s prior
disciplinary action, the number of violations, and Weitzman’s lack of remorse. See Special
App’x at 46-47. Considering these circumstances, the Committee’s two-year suspension for
Weitzman’s misconduct “was well within the range of permissible decisions.” Demetriades, 58
F.4th at 55 (quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., In re Friedman, 609 N.Y.S.2d 578, 586 (1st Dep’t
1994) (imposing permanent disbarment for acts of dishonesty to the court because a two-year
suspension was “far too lenient”); In re Friedman, 51 F.3d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam)
(indefinite suspension); In re Disbarment of Friedman, 513 U.S. 1037, 1037 (1994) (disbarment).
Third, equitable defenses do not shield Weitzman from discipline. Weitzman claims that
the doctrines of unclean hands, equitable estoppel, and laches bar the Committee from enforcing
its orders. But none of those doctrines applies here. Weitzman does not identify any
wrongdoing necessary for unclean hands or equitable estoppel, nor does he show that the lengthy
investigation prejudiced him, as the laches defense requires. We thus conclude that there is no
equitable basis for limiting the Committee’s enforcement of its sanctions order.
4 Weitzman’s other challenges to the Committee’s decision are similarly frivolous. For
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
23-872 (L) In re Raphael Weitzman
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of September, two thousand twenty-four.
Present: RICHARD C. WESLEY, MICHAEL H. PARK, Circuit Judges. LEWIS J. LIMAN, District Judge.* __________________________________________
COMMITTEE ON GRIEVANCES FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v. 23-872 (L); 23-7556 (CON)
RAPHAEL WEITZMAN,
Respondent-Appellant.
__________________________________________
FOR PETITIONER-APPELLEE: Evan R. Chesler, Brittany L Sukiennik, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY.
* Judge Lewis J. Liman, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT: Raphael Weitzman, Weitzman Law Offices, L.L.C., New York, NY.
Appeal from the September 7, 2022, May 8, 2023, and October 16, 2023 orders of the
Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (Failla, J., Chair, Committee on Grievances S.D.N.Y.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the orders of the Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York are AFFIRMED.
Respondent-Appellant Raphael Weitzman, an attorney, appeals from three orders of the
Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (“the Committee”) related to his handling of $1.5 million in disputed settlement funds. In
its September 7, 2022 order, the Committee adopted a Magistrate Judge’s Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that Weitzman violated the New York Rules of Professional
Conduct by commingling client funds, failing to maintain settlement funds in a separate account,
failing to maintain proper disbursement records, and making false statements to a tribunal. On
May 8, 2023, the Committee suspended Weitzman from practicing law in the Southern District of
New York for two years. In an October 16, 2023 order, the Committee denied Weitzman’s
motion to modify or set aside the earlier orders and to disqualify the Committee’s counsel. We
assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, record of prior proceedings, and issues
on appeal.
2 On appeal, Weitzman argues that the Committee’s orders should be vacated because of
alleged procedural issues with its investigation, lack of clear and convincing evidence, and
excessive sanctions. These arguments are meritless.
This Court reviews the Committee’s disciplinary orders for abuse of discretion—that is,
“if its imposition of sanctions was based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence, or cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.” In
re Peters, 642 F.3d 381, 384 (2d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). Although
we have applied a more exacting inquiry when the same judge acts as accuser, fact finder, and
sentencer, id., the “ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard” applies here because different judges
and outside counsel referred, investigated, and disciplined Weitzman, see In re Demetriades, 58
F.4th 37, 45 n.2 (2d Cir. 2023).
First, we discern no due-process violations in the Committee’s investigation. Weitzman
argues that the investigation was “flawed” and “denied [him] due process,” but the record belies
that claim. Weitzman complains that he was “prohibited from presenting evidence” or
responding at an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s Br. at 31, but the Magistrate Judge clearly invited
him to do so, see App’x 1336-37. Weitzman’s other complaints fare no better, and he fails to
demonstrate that “the procedure . . . was so lacking . . . in opportunity to be heard as to constitute
a deprivation of due process.” In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84, 89 (2d Cir. 1994). We thus reject
Weitzman’s challenge to the Committee’s September 7, 2022 order adopting the R&R’s
investigative findings.
Weitzman’s evidentiary challenges also fail. He argues that the Committee “failed to
substantiate the charges by . . . clear and convincing evidence” in adopting the R&R and imposing
3 discipline. To the contrary, the R&R’s findings are supported by ample evidence of misconduct.
The record reflects that Weitzman withdrew $1.5 million from his client’s escrow account in
March and then represented to the court that he disbursed those funds in November. The
Committee appropriately relied on this record of misconduct to find by clear and convincing
evidence that Weitzman violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in its September 7, 2022 order.
Second, the Committee acted well within its discretion in suspending Weitzman from
practicing in the district for two years. Weitzman argues that the Committee erroneously rejected
his mitigating factors in its May 8, 2023 sanctions order. But the Committee reasonably found
those factors insignificant in light of the aggravating circumstances—including Weitzman’s prior
disciplinary action, the number of violations, and Weitzman’s lack of remorse. See Special
App’x at 46-47. Considering these circumstances, the Committee’s two-year suspension for
Weitzman’s misconduct “was well within the range of permissible decisions.” Demetriades, 58
F.4th at 55 (quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., In re Friedman, 609 N.Y.S.2d 578, 586 (1st Dep’t
1994) (imposing permanent disbarment for acts of dishonesty to the court because a two-year
suspension was “far too lenient”); In re Friedman, 51 F.3d 20, 22 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam)
(indefinite suspension); In re Disbarment of Friedman, 513 U.S. 1037, 1037 (1994) (disbarment).
Third, equitable defenses do not shield Weitzman from discipline. Weitzman claims that
the doctrines of unclean hands, equitable estoppel, and laches bar the Committee from enforcing
its orders. But none of those doctrines applies here. Weitzman does not identify any
wrongdoing necessary for unclean hands or equitable estoppel, nor does he show that the lengthy
investigation prejudiced him, as the laches defense requires. We thus conclude that there is no
equitable basis for limiting the Committee’s enforcement of its sanctions order.
4 Weitzman’s other challenges to the Committee’s decision are similarly frivolous. For
example, he argues that his conduct should be excused—including repeated lies to the district
court—because his client was “extremely difficult to represent.” And Weitzman’s ad hominem
attacks on the Committee and its counsel are baseless.
Finally, Weitzman’s motion to strike the Committee’s brief is also frivolous. The
Committee has asked this Court to impose sanctions because that motion was “entirely meritless”
and “brought for improper purposes.” This Court has the inherent power to sanction attorneys
for frivolous motions made in bad faith. Ransmeier v. Mariani, 718 F.3d 64, 69 (2d Cir. 2013).
We conclude that Weitzman’s motion has no legal merit, contains affirmative misrepresentations
belied by the record, and worked only to burden and attack the Committee. Weitzman’s
declaration in opposition to the Committee’s cross-motion for sanctions continued these baseless
attacks and failed to identify any plausible basis for his motion. In light of Weitzman’s meritless
appeal and misconduct, we impose sanctions in the form of costs incurred by the Committee in
responding to his motion. We also refer Weitzman to this Court’s Committee on Admissions and
Grievances.
5 * * * We have considered Weitzman’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without
merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the September 7, 2022, May 8, 2023, and October 16, 2023
orders of the Committee. We also DENY Weitzman’s motion to strike the Committee’s brief
and GRANT the Committee’s cross-motion for sanctions with an award of costs incurred in
responding to that motion.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court