Opinion
PM–34–21
03-18-2021
In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Appellant; v. Shawneequa Lauren Callier, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4499422)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Shawneequa Lauren Callier, Washington, DC, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Shawneequa Lauren Callier, Washington, DC, respondent pro se.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2007 and is also admitted in Washington, DC, where she is employed as an Associate Professor at George Washington University. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law by May 2019 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her noncompliance with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468–a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 beginning in 2011 ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1714, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 [2019] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5] ; Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d]). Upon curing her registration delinquency in July 2020, respondent, by application marked returnable on February 8, 2021, now applies for her reinstatement. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposes respondent's motion based upon certain omissions in her application.
Finding no open claims, the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection advises that it does not oppose respondent's reinstatement application.
--------
We initially note that respondent has satisfied the procedural requirements for an attorney seeking reinstatement to the practice of law from a suspension of more than six months (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2020] ) by, among other things, submitting a sworn affidavit in the proper form set forth in appendix C to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). As for the threshold documentation required to be submitted in support of her application, we note that respondent has requested a waiver of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (hereinafter MPRE) requirement applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspensions of more than six months (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; see e.g. Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [D'Alessandro], 169 A.D.3d 1349, 95 N.Y.S.3d 371 [2019] ). Significantly, "[t]he MPRE requirement serves two important purposes: it reemphasizes the importance of ethical conduct to attorneys who have been subjected to serious public discipline, and it also reassures the general public that such attorneys have undergone retraining in the field of professional responsibility" ( Matter of Cooper, 128 A.D.3d 1267, 1267, 8 N.Y.S.3d 924 [2015] ). Accordingly, an applicant must demonstrate "good cause" for the waiver, which standard may be satisfied by providing assurances "that additional MPRE testing would be unnecessary under the circumstances" ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [2017]).
Our review of the documentation provided by respondent in support of her application convinces us that a waiver of the MPRE requirement is appropriate in this instance (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Sauer], 178 A.D.3d 1191, 1193, 114 N.Y.S.3d 523 [2019] ). Aside from her extensive training in medical ethics and diversity, respondent has recently passed a required ethics and professionalism course in Washington, DC, has an otherwise blemish-free disciplinary history and has completed numerous credit hours of continuing legal education devoted to legal ethics. Under these circumstances, we agree that it is not necessary for respondent to undergo further MPRE testing, and we therefore grant her request for a waiver.
As for the remainder of respondent's application, we find that she has sufficiently established by clear and convincing evidence that she has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from disciplinary suspension (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 175 A.D.3d 1767, 1768, 108 N.Y.S.3d 556 [2019] ). Respondent has sufficiently demonstrated her compliance with the order of suspension. As to her character and fitness, respondent's application materials raise no cause for concern, inasmuch as she reports no criminal record and she further attests that she has not been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action or governmental investigation since her suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix C, ¶¶ 14, 30, 31). We further conclude that respondent's reinstatement would be in the public interest. Giving due consideration to the fact that respondent's misconduct does not raise any concerns regarding a possible detriment to the public, as well as her otherwise spotless disciplinary history, we find that no detriment would inure to the public from respondent's reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Serbinowski], 164 A.D.3d 1049, 1051, 85 N.Y.S.3d 232 [2018]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Timourian], 153 A.D.3d 1513, 1515, 59 N.Y.S.3d 924 [2017] ). We therefore grant respondent's motion and reinstate her to the practice of law in New York.
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that respondent's motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.