Opinion
2013-01-24
In the Matter of Allen Y. HSU (admitted as Yung Hwei Hsu), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Allen Y. Hsu, Respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Allen Y. Hsu, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on August 10, 1992. Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Jun Hwa Lee, of counsel), for petitioner. Patrick J. Brackley, for respondent.
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Allen Y. Hsu, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on August 10, 1992.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York (Jun Hwa Lee, of counsel), for petitioner. Patrick J. Brackley, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Allen Y. Hsu was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on August 10, 1992, under the name Yung Hwei Hsu. At all times relevant herein, respondent has maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department.
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) seeks an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 603.3, censuring respondent predicated upon similar discipline imposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
By amended order of the Second Circuit dated January 6, 2012, respondent was publicly reprimanded for deficient briefing in six cases and for sanctionable conduct in a bankruptcy proceeding, and directed to comply with specific CLE and co-counsel requirements. Respondent was directed not to file in the court, for a period of two years, any further briefs, motions or other papers unless they were co-signed by another member of the court's bar who had entered an appearance as co-counsel in the case and met other requirements detailed in the order.
The record establishes that respondent was afforded due process, and there was sufficient evidence establishing his admitted misconduct. Respondent's pattern of deficient brief-writing constitutes a violation of RPC 1.1(a) (“a lawyer should provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation”), and reciprocal discipline is therefore appropriate ( see Matter of Jaffe, 78 A.D.3d 152, 908 N.Y.S.2d 623 [1st Dept. 2010] ).
Accordingly, the Committee's petition for reciprocal discipline should be granted, and respondent should be publicly censured.