Opinion
PM-110-23
06-01-2023
In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468-A. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Hubert Christopher Raglan, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4524534)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Hubert Christopher Raglan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Hubert Christopher Raglan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, respondent pro se.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court in 2007. By September 2022 order of this Court, respondent was suspended for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a for the 2019–2020 and 2021–2022 biennial periods ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 208 A.D.3d 1421, 1440, 173 N.Y.S.3d 697 [3d Dept. 2022] ). Respondent now moves for his reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [ 22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]). Petitioner opposes respondent's motion, noting his ineligibility for reinstatement due to his failure to comply with his registration requirements for the 2023–2024 biennial period.
" ‘An attorney seeking reinstatement from suspension must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and this Court's rules, that he or she has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and that reinstatement would be in the public's interest’ " ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Andison], 211 A.D.3d 1307, 1308, 179 N.Y.S.3d 498 [3d Dept. 2022] [citations omitted], quoting Matter of Edelstein, 150 A.D.3d 1531, 1531, 56 N.Y.S.3d 356 [3d Dept. 2017] ). The Judiciary Law and accompanying rules of statewide applicability require that " ‘every attorney admitted to practice in New York, including those attorneys who have been suspended from practice, ... continue to comply with the registration requirements’ of this state" ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Devlin], 197 A.D.3d 1431, 1431, 151 N.Y.S.3d 648 [3d Dept. 2021], quoting Matter of Castillo, 157 A.D.3d 1158, 1159 n. 3, 69 N.Y.S.3d 449 [3d Dept. 2018] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [1] ; Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1[a]-[c]). A suspended attorney who is delinquent in his or her registration obligations is subject to additional potential discipline and is therefore not entitled to reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Devlin], 197 A.D.3d at 1432, 151 N.Y.S.3d 648 ).
While respondent cured his initial registration delinquency, he is now delinquent with the registration requirements for the 2023–2024 biennial period. Accordingly, as he is currently delinquent with his registration obligation and, thus, subject to potential discipline, we deny his motion for reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Zochowski], 207 A.D.3d 987, 988, 170 N.Y.S.3d 536 [3d Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Devlin], 197 A.D.3d at 1432, 151 N.Y.S.3d 648 ).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia and Fisher, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that respondent's motion is denied.