In Re Rosellini

Opinion

26-90048 In re Rosellini 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 TO 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 11th day of August, two thousand twenty-six.

PRESENT:

JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

MYRNA PÉREZ,

Circuit Judges.

26-90048-am

IN RE KENNETH J. ROSELLINI, ORDER OF

Attorney. GRIEVANCE PANEL

FOR ATTORNEY: KENNETH J. ROSELLINI Clifton, New Jersey

In May 2023, Kenneth J. Rosellini applied for renewal of his admission to the bar of this Court.

His application stated that disciplinary proceedings were then pending against him in the State of New Jersey. Decision on the renewal application was stayed pending completion of the New Jersey proceedings.

In November 2023, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order temporarily suspending

Rosellini from the practice of law “effective immediately and until further order of [that] Court.” In re Rosellini, 256 N.J. 30, 304 A.3d 675 (2023) (Mem.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1459 (2024). The New Jersey attorney registration website indicates that Rosellini is currently suspended, apparently based on the November 2023 order. No public order suggests that the New Jersey disciplinary proceedings have ended.

Had Rosellini’s admission to this Court’s bar been renewed in May 2023, this Court’s reciprocal discipline rule and case law would have required, in or after November 2023, that Rosellini be suspended on terms and conditions comparable to those found in the November 2023 New Jersey Supreme Court order, although Rosellini could have then argued that a different disposition was appropriate. See 2d Cir. Local R. 46.2(c)(2); In re Roman, 601 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2010). As a result, unless a different disposition was found appropriate, this Court’s reciprocal suspension would still be in effect today. In fact, the reciprocal suspension would have had the potential to extend beyond the original New Jersey suspension, since any delayed notification to this Court of the New Jersey suspension would generally cause this Court’s suspension to continue until the full length of the New Jersey suspension was matched. See In re Bernfeld, 774 F.3d 169, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[D]elayed notification to this Court [of another authority’s disciplinary order] means delayed entry of this Court’s reciprocal disciplinary order, and delayed commencement of whatever disciplinary measures are imposed by this Court. This Court’s reciprocal suspension orders generally are not imposed nunc pro tunc to the date of the original disciplinary order (although the Court may do so in the exercise of its informed discretion).”).

Under these circumstances, renewal of Rosellini’s admission to the bar of this Court would not be appropriate at this time. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Rosellini’s bar admission renewal application is DENIED.

The Clerk of Court is directed to release this order to the public by posting it on this Court’s

3

website and providing copies to the public in the same manner as all other unpublished decisions of this Court, and to serve a copy of this order on Rosellini, the New Jersey Supreme Court, the New Jersey Supreme Court Disciplinary Review Board, and all other courts and jurisdictions to which this Court distributes disciplinary decisions in the ordinary course. *

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

*

Counsel to this panel is authorized to provide to other courts and attorney disciplinary authorities, upon their request, all documents from the record of this proceeding. While we request that those documents remain confidential to the extent circumstances allow, we leave to the discretion of those courts and disciplinary authorities the decision of whether specific documents, or portions of documents, should be made available to any person or the public.