From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Att'y Grievance Comm. v. Lee (In re Att'y in Violation of Jud. L. § 468-A)

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Feb 29, 2024
204 N.Y.S.3d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

Opinion

Attorney Registration No. 4310801)

02-29-2024

In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Peter Seung–K Wang Lee, Respondent.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Peter Seung-K wang Lee, Washington, DC, respondent pro se.


Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Peter Seung-K wang Lee, Washington, DC, respondent pro se. DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1736, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 [3d Dept. 2019]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent’s notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to November 8, 2023 and the February 2, 2024 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (2) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), it is

In light of respondent’s provision of proof of his satisfactory passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, among other things, we excuse his noncompliance with Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16(c)(5) (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Tabibzadegan], 215 A.D.3d 1164, 1166, 186 N.Y.S.3d 449 [3d Dept. 2023]).

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.

Egan Jr., J.P., Pritzker, Lynch, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Mackey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Att'y Grievance Comm. v. Lee (In re Att'y in Violation of Jud. L. § 468-A)

New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
Feb 29, 2024
204 N.Y.S.3d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)
Case details for

Att'y Grievance Comm. v. Lee (In re Att'y in Violation of Jud. L. § 468-A)

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A. Attorney…

Court:New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Date published: Feb 29, 2024

Citations

204 N.Y.S.3d 347 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)