MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2008 and resides in Ohio, where she is also admitted to practice law. She is currently employed as in-house counsel for a company where she represents creditors in collection matters. Respondent was suspended from practice in New York by May 2019 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her failure to comply with her biennial registration obligations beginning in 2010 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1746, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 [3d Dept. 2019]). She cured her registration delinquency in April 2022, has since remained current in her registration obligations, and now seeks reinstatement, as well as a waiver of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (hereinafter MPRE) requirement by motion made returnable August 29, 2022. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) has responded to the motion by August 24, 2022 correspondence. While AGC notes certain deficiencies in respondents application, it does not object to her reinstatement, but rather defers to our discretion on respondents application.
1
An attorney seeking reinstatement from suspension must satisfy certain procedural requirements and those requirements vary based on the length of the attorneys suspension (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [3d Dept. 2020]; Matter of Jing Tan, 164 A.D.3d 1515, 1517, 82 N.Y.S.3d 272 [3d Dept. 2018]).
2
As of the date of her motion, respondent has been suspended for approximately three years; she thus appropriately prepared an affidavit and accompanying exhibits pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, appendix C (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b]; compare Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[d]). As to respondents request for a waiver of the MPRE requirement, an attorney must establish good cause for same by assuring “this Court that additional MPRE testing would be unnecessary under the circumstances” (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [3d Dept. 2017]). As we have previously observed, “proof of analogous professional responsibility course work or retraining in the attorneys home jurisdiction might, under the proper circumstances, justify a waiver” (id.).
Here, respondents affidavit and accompanying exhibits demonstrate that respondent is current with her continuing legal education (hereinafter CLE) requirements in Ohio in the area of “professional conduct,” completing hours in excess of the required amount. Moreover, the basis of respondents suspension in New York rests solely on her failure to comply with New Yorks registration requirement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a, 172 A.D.3d at 1746, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211) – a delinquency which she has now cured – and she has not been subject to discipline in any other jurisdiction. Under the facts and circumstances presented, respondent has provided sufficient assurances warranting a waiver of the MPRE requirement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376, 143 N.Y.S.3d 169 [3d Dept. 2021]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d at 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672). Inasmuch as respondent has therefore satisfied the procedural requirements, we turn our attention to the substantive aspects of respondents application.
An attorney seeking reinstatement following disciplinary suspension must satisfy, by clear and convincing evidence, a three-prong test in order to establish entitlement to reinstatement (see Matter of Jing Tan, 164 A.D.3d at 1517, 82 N.Y.S.3d 272; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a]). First, the attorney must demonstrate that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and all applicable Court rules (see Matter of Sommer, 150 A.D.3d 1530, 1530, 56 N.Y.S.3d 354 [3d Dept. 2017]). Here, respondents submissions to this Court indicate that she has not been practicing in New York in violation of this Courts order of suspension, and AGC raises no concern in this regard. Significantly, respondent has remained compliant with her attorney registration requirements since curing the delinquency giving rise to her suspension. Moreover, her application notes that, as an attorney who does not practice law in New York, she is exempt from its CLE requirement (see Rules of App.Div., All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1500.5[b][1]). While respondent did not file the affidavit of compliance required under Rules for Attorney Discipline (22 NYCRR) § 1240.15(f) within 45 days of her suspension, we find that respondents submission of the affidavit of compliance contemporaneous with her application for reinstatement has cured this defect (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Lawrence], 193 A.D.3d 1318, 1319, 145 N.Y.S.3d 681 [3d Dept. 2021]). As such, respondent has established her compliance with the Courts rules as to suspended attorneys and its suspension order (see id.; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Wilson], 186 A.D.3d 1874, 1875, 130 N.Y.S.3d 577 [3d Dept. 2020]).
As to prongs two and three, the attorney must also demonstrate his or her character and fitness for the practice of law (see Matter of Edelstein, 150 A.D.3d 1531, 1531, 56 N.Y.S.3d 356 [3d Dept. 2017]) and that his or her reinstatement would be in the public interest, which latter prong requires the attorney to “provide assurances that no detriment would inure to the public by reason of the attorneys return to practice, and that his or her reinstatement would be of some tangible benefit to the public” (Matter of Sullivan, 153 A.D.3d 1484, 1484, 59 N.Y.S.3d 731 [3d Dept. 2017]). Here, respondents submitted materials, combined with the nature of the misconduct giving rise to respondents suspension, demonstrate that she possesses the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and that it would be in the publics interest to reinstate her (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d at 1377, 143 N.Y.S.3d 169; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [DAlesandro], 177 A.D.3d 1243, 1245, 114 N.Y.S.3d 512 [3d Dept. 2019]). Accordingly, having determined that respondent has satisfied her burden in every respect, we grant her application for reinstatement.
ORDERED that respondents motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection has indicated in correspondence dated May 31, 2022 that there are no open claims against respondent and similarly did not object to respondents motion.
2
. We take the opportunity to remind the bar that the Courts procedural rules have been amended for all applications filed after September 1, 2022 where the respondent is seeking reinstatement from a suspension arising solely from his or her violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a.
Per Curiam.
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Fisher, JJ., concur.