Lexplug logoLexplug

In the Matter of Monaghan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
295 A.D.2d 38, 743 N.Y.S.2d 519 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, a state court may impose discipline based on a federal court's finding of misconduct, even if a state-appointed referee finds an infirmity of proof, especially when the attorney had previously stipulated to violating the specific anti-discrimination rules in the federal proceeding.


Facts:

  • The respondent, an attorney, represented a client at a deposition conducted by Gail A. Perry, a Black woman, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Labor.
  • During the depositions on February 15 and March 22, 1996, the respondent engaged in a "continuing harangue" of Perry regarding her alleged mispronunciation of the words "establish" and "especially."
  • The respondent later admitted his own conduct was "inappropriate and rude and crude."
  • On November 6, 1996, the respondent sent Perry a letter of apology in which he acknowledged that his "language and tone were unwarranted and inappropriate."

Procedural Posture:

  • The U.S. Department of Labor moved for sanctions against the respondent in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for his deposition conduct.
  • The SDNY judge fined the respondent $500 and referred him to the court's Committee on Grievances for disciplinary action.
  • In the SDNY disciplinary proceeding, the respondent entered a written stipulation conceding that his conduct violated professional rules, including the rule against unlawful discrimination.
  • The SDNY Committee on Grievances issued an order on March 27, 2001, publicly censuring the respondent for 'race-based abuse of opposing counsel.'
  • The petitioner, a New York grievance committee, moved in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court) to impose reciprocal discipline based on the SDNY's censure.
  • In response, the respondent raised the affirmative defense that there was an 'infirmity of proof' supporting the SDNY's finding that the misconduct was race-based.
  • The Appellate Division appointed a Special Referee to hold a hearing on the respondent's defense.
  • The Special Referee issued a report sustaining the respondent's defense and finding the conduct was more likely gender-related than race-related.
  • The respondent then moved to confirm the Special Referee's report in the Appellate Division.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

In a reciprocal attorney discipline proceeding, does an affirmative defense of an infirmity of proof establishing the race-based nature of misconduct overcome a federal court's finding, when the attorney had previously stipulated to violating the rule against unlawful discrimination in the practice of law?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. An attorney's affirmative defense of an infirmity of proof does not overcome a federal court's finding when the attorney had previously stipulated to violating the underlying rule. Based on the respondent’s own stipulation in the federal proceeding, where he conceded that his conduct violated the Code of Professional Responsibility's rule against unlawful discrimination, the Special Referee erred in finding a lack of evidentiary support for the race-based nature of the misconduct. The court therefore rejects the Special Referee's report, accepts the federal court's finding, and imposes reciprocal discipline.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle of comity and deference between disciplinary bodies in different jurisdictions. It establishes that an attorney's own stipulation to a rule violation in one proceeding can be used to defeat a later attempt to challenge the factual basis for that violation in a reciprocal proceeding. The ruling underscores that attorneys cannot easily relitigate the factual findings of one jurisdiction when facing reciprocal discipline in another, particularly after admitting to the conduct. This strengthens the finality of initial disciplinary findings and streamlines the process of imposing reciprocal sanctions.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query In the Matter of Monaghan (2002) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for In the Matter of Monaghan