Matter of Duthely

125 A.D.3d 126, 998 N.Y.S.2d 643

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 21, 2015
• Docket: 2013-03295
• Status: Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts served the respondent with a petition containing a single charge of professional misconduct. After a preliminary conference on December 19, 2013, and a hearing conducted on January 24, 2014 and February 26, 2014, the Special Referee sustained the charge. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee’s report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and appropriate. Although served with a copy of the motion papers, the respondent has not submitted any response.

Charge one alleges that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct in that he has been convicted of a crime, in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 8.4’(b) and (h). On July 24, 2012, the respondent entered a plea of guilty before the Honorable Pauline Mullings in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, to failure to pay tax, in violation of former Tax Law § 1810, an unclassified misdemeanor. He was sentenced to a one-year conditional discharge.

Based on the evidence adduced, and the respondent’s admissions at the hearing, the Special Referee properly sustained the charge. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report is granted.

The respondent has no prior disciplinary history.

In mitigation, the respondent asked at the hearing that the following factors be considered: his remorse, his general reputation as an excellent attorney, his cooperation with the Grievance Committee, his conditional discharge, the fact that the conduct is unrelated to the practice of law, the absence of fraud or venality, his status as a single parent with custody of three children after a contentious divorce, his modest income as a public interest attorney who services an underserved community, the arrangements he has already undertaken to reduce his living expenses, and his good faith effort made thus far in resolving his delinquencies.

We find no excuse for the respondent’s misconduct, which consisted of failing to file tax returns and pay taxes for multiple years. In view of the mitigating circumstances, we find that a public censure is warranted.

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Skelos, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent, Ralph Duthely, is publicly censured for his professional misconduct.