Opinion
M–1039 M–2665
08-09-2018
In the MATTER OF Charles C. SIMPKINS, (admitted as Charles Claudio Simpkins) an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, v. Charles C. Simpkins, Respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. Mischel & Horn, P.C. (Richard E. Mischel, of counsel) for respondent.
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.
Mischel & Horn, P.C. (Richard E. Mischel, of counsel) for respondent.
Rosalyn H. Richter, Justice Presiding, Peter Tom, Angela M. Mazzerelli, Ellen Gesmer, Peter H. Moulton, Justices.
In the Matter of Charles C. Simpkins, an Attorney
Per Curiam
Respondent Charles C. Simpkins was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on May 21, 2014, under the name Charles Claudio Simpkins. At all times relevant to this proceeding, he maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.
The Attorney Grievance Committee commenced this disciplinary proceeding by a petition of charges dated February 26, 2018 ( Judiciary Law § 90[2], Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 ), alleging that respondent was guilty of certain misconduct in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ) arising from his unlawful use of a credit/debit card to make purchases and from his false statements made thereafter regarding the incident.
The parties agree on the stipulated facts, including the admission to the acts of professional misconduct and the violation thereof, the relevant factors in mitigation, and on the discipline. The parties now jointly move pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.8(a)(5) for discipline on consent and request the imposition of a public censure.
In support of the joint motion for discipline by consent, the parties rely on Matter of Gallagher, 97 A.D.3d 254, 945 N.Y.S.2d 320 [1st Dept. 2012] ; Matter of Bottehsazan, 75 A.D.3d 264, 902 N.Y.S.2d 404 [2d Dept. 2010] ; and Matter of Irving, 53 A.D.3d 14, 859 N.Y.S.2d 734 [2d Dept. 2008], and agree that the underlying facts in those cases are analogous to the facts herein and should be followed. In light of the significant factors in mitigation, including respondent's cooperation, admitted conduct and acceptance of responsibility, successful completion and ongoing involvement in the Lawyer's Assistance Program, expressions of remorse, and willingness to make restitution, the parties agree that a public censure is appropriate.
Accordingly, the parties' joint motion for discipline by consent should be granted and respondent is censured. The Committee's separately filed petition of charges should be denied as moot.Ordered that the joint motion for discipline on consent is granted, and respondent is censured (M–2665). The Committee's petition of charges is denied as moot (M–1039).
All concur.