Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Sauer)
This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 8758 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Sauer)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468-a (Sauer) (2019 NY Slip Op 08758)</TITLE>
<STYLE>
BODY {
font-family : "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-size : larger;
}
P {
line-height: 150%;
text-indent: 2em
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor=#ffffff>
<table width="80%" border="1" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="5" align="center" bgcolor="#FFFF80">
<tr>
<td align="center"><B>Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law 468-a (Sauer)</B></td>
</tr>
<td align="center">2019 NY Slip Op 08758</td>
<td align="center">Decided on December 5, 2019</td>
<td align="center">Appellate Division, Third Department</td>
<td align="center"><font color="#FF0000">Published by <a href="http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/">New York State Law Reporting Bureau</a> pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</font></td>
<td align="center"><font color="#FF0000">This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</font></td>
</table>
<BR><BR>
<DateLine type="decided" mdy="12052019">Decided and Entered: December 5, 2019</DateLine>
<div align="center"></div>
<br>PM-214-19
<br><br><div align="center"><b><font size ="+1"><font color="FF0000">[*1]</font>In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Richard H. Sauer, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2436038.)
</font></b></div><br><br>
<DateLine type="prior_case_filed">Calendar Date: November 12, 2019</DateLine>
<BR>Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
<P>Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.</P>
<P>Richard H. Sauer, Medina, Washington, respondent pro se.</P>
<P></P>
<P>Richard H. Sauer, Medina, Washington, respondent pro se.</P>
<P>Per Curiam.</P>
<P>Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1991 and was admitted to practice in Washington in 2000. He currently lists a business address in Pleasanton, California with the Office of Court Administration.</P><div align="center">By January 2014 order of this Court, respondent was suspended from the</div>
<P>practice of law indefinitely for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a since the 2007-2008 biennial period (<a href="../2014/2014_00588.htm" target="_blank"><I>Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a</I>, 113 AD3d 1020</a>, 1029 [2014]). After curing his registration delinquency in November 2014, respondent did not seek his reinstatement until this year, by motion marked returnable November 12, 2019. Petitioner has opposed respondent's motion based upon certain identified deficiencies,<SUP><A HREF=#1FN NAME="1CASE"><B>[FN1]</B></A></SUP> and respondent has since submitted supplemental correspondence addressing petitioner's concerns.</P><div align="center"></div>
<P>All attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this</P>
<P>Court, (2) that he or she has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate the attorney to practice in New York (<a href="../2018/2018_08232.htm" target="_blank"><I>see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Katz]</I>, 166 AD3d 1469</a>, 1470 [2018]; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). An applicant for reinstatement must also provide, as a threshold matter, certain required documentation in support of his or her application (<I>see</I> Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; part 1240, appendix C).</P><div align="center">Initially, given the length of his suspension, respondent properly submits</div>
<P>a sworn affidavit in the form set forth in appendix C to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (<I>see</I> Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Notably, as part of his application, respondent has requested a waiver of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) requirement applicable to attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions of more than six months (<I>see</I> Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; <a href="../2019/2019_01485.htm" target="_blank"><I>see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [D'Alessandro]</I>, 169 AD3d 1349</a> [2019]).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2019 NY Slip Op 8758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-attorneys-in-violation-of-judiciary-law-468-a-sauer-nyappdiv-2019.