Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376, 143 N.Y.S.3d 169 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
In respondent's supplemental affidavit, however, he requests a waiver as to this requirement, noting his completion of various continuing legal education (hereinafter CLE) credits and his exemption from CLE accreditation in this state as a nonpracticing New York attorney. It is well settled that "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 [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). To that end" 'proof of analogous professional responsibility course work or retraining in the attorney's home jurisdiction might, under the proper circumstances, justify a waiver'" (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Holtz], 185 A.D.3d 1277, 1280 [3d Dept 2020], quoting Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224 [3d Dept 2017]).
As respondent concedes, however, he has not provided proof of his successful completion of the MPRE within the one year prior to the date of his application for reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). It is well settled that "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 [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376 [3d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). To that end," 'proof of analogous professional responsibility course work or retraining in the attorney's home jurisdiction might, under the proper circumstances, justify a waiver'" (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Holtz], 185 A.D.3d 1277, 1280 [3d Dept 2020], quoting Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224 [3d Dept 2017])
In respondent's supplemental affidavit, however, he requests a waiver as to this requirement, noting his completion of various continuing legal education (hereinafter CLE) credits and his exemption from CLE accreditation in this state as a nonpracticing New York attorney. It is well settled that "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 [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376, 143 N.Y.S.3d 169 [3d Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). To that end " ‘proof of analogous professional responsibility course work or retraining in the attorney's home jurisdiction might, under the proper circumstances, justify a waiver’ "
Here, respondent's affidavit and accompanying exhibits demonstrate that he is current with his continuing legal education requirements in Toronto, Canada, including in the area of "professional matters." This, combined with the nature of respondent's suspension in failing to comply with New York's attorney registration requirement – a delinquency which he has now cured – and his lack of disciplinary history in other jurisdictions, provides adequate assurances to us that additional MPRE testing would be unnecessary (seeMatter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1377, 143 N.Y.S.3d 169 [3d Dept. 2021] ). Inasmuch as respondent has satisfied the procedural requirements, we turn our attention to the substantive aspects of his application.
Here, respondent's affidavit and accompanying exhibits demonstrate that he is current with his continuing legal education requirements in Toronto, Canada, including in the area of "professional matters." This, combined with the nature of respondent's suspension in failing to comply with New York's attorney registration requirement - a delinquency which he has now cured - and his lack of disciplinary history in other jurisdictions, provides adequate assurances to us that additional MPRE testing would be unnecessary (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1377 [3d Dept 2021]). Inasmuch as respondent has satisfied the procedural requirements, we turn our attention to the substantive aspects of his application.
Moreover, the basis of respondent's suspension in New York rests solely on her failure to comply with New York's registration requirement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468-a, 172 A.D.3d at 1746) - a delinquency which she has now cured - and she has not been subject to discipline in any other jurisdiction. Under the facts and circumstances presented, respondent has provided sufficient assurances warranting a waiver of the MPRE requirement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376 [3d Dept 2021]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d at 1224). Inasmuch as respondent has therefore satisfied the procedural requirements, we turn our attention to the substantive aspects of respondent's application.
Moreover, the basis of respondent's suspension in New York rests solely on her failure to comply with New York's registration requirement (seeMatter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a, 172 A.D.3d at 1746, 104 N.Y.S.3d 211 ) – a delinquency which she has now cured – and she has not been subject to discipline in any other jurisdiction. Under the facts and circumstances presented, respondent has provided sufficient assurances warranting a waiver of the MPRE requirement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376, 143 N.Y.S.3d 169 [3d Dept. 2021] ; compareMatter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d at 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 ). Inasmuch as respondent has therefore satisfied the procedural requirements, we turn our attention to the substantive aspects of respondent's application.
In view of respondent's submissions, we are persuaded to grant her request for a waiver of the MPRE requirement. Notably, her submissions reflect an otherwise unblemished disciplinary history, her distinguished career devoted to the service of international humanitarian efforts and her extensive and ongoing international ethics training (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Sanghan Wang], 199 A.D.3d 1163, 1164-1165 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376 [3d Dept 2021]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Kelly], 190 A.D.3d 1253, 1254 [3d Dept 2021]). Turning to respondent's compliance with the order of suspension and the rules governing suspended attorneys, respondent avers that she has not engaged in the practice of law in this state or any other jurisdiction following her suspension.
In view of respondent's submissions, we are persuaded to grant her request for a waiver of the MPRE requirement. Notably, her submissions reflect an otherwise unblemished disciplinary history, her distinguished career devoted to the service of international humanitarian efforts and her extensive and ongoing international ethics training (seeMatter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Sanghan Wang], 199 A.D.3d 1163, 1164–1165, 155 N.Y.S.3d 498 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Callier], 192 A.D.3d 1375, 1376, 143 N.Y.S.3d 169 [3d Dept. 2021] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468–a [Kelly], 190 A.D.3d 1253, 1254, 139 N.Y.S.3d 728 [3d Dept. 2021] ). Turning to respondent's compliance with the order of suspension and the rules governing suspended attorneys, respondent avers that she has not engaged in the practice of law in this state or any other jurisdiction following her suspension.