Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law ? 468-a (Nam)

2025 NY Slip Op 04824

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: PM-179-25
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Nam) (2025 NY Slip Op 04824)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Nam)

2025 NY Slip Op 04824

Decided on August 28, 2025

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:August 28, 2025

PM-179-25

[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Sae Hyun Nam, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 5138201.)

Calendar Date:August 11, 2025
Before:Clark, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Powers, JJ., concur.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Sae Hyun Nam, Irvine, California, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating her to the practice of law following her suspension by September 2022 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 208 AD3d 1421, 1438 [3d Dept 2022]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to July 2, 2025, her supplemental materials filed July 11, 2025 and the August 5, 2025 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]),^[FN1] it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.

Clark, J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher and Powers, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Footnote 1: In light of respondent's provision of proof of her satisfactory passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, among other things, we excuse her noncompliance with Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5) (i) (see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Plant], 226 AD3d 1300, 1301 n [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Lee], 224 AD3d 1213, 1214 n [3d Dept 2024]).