Opinion
PM–38–21
03-25-2021
In the MATTER OF ATTORNEYS IN VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW § 468–A. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; v. Jamie Lynn Hopkins, Also Known as Jamie Lynn Cicerelle, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2839199)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner. Jamie Lynn Cicerelle, Great Meadows, New Jersey, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner.
Jamie Lynn Cicerelle, Great Meadows, New Jersey, respondent pro se.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Colangelo, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1997 and is also admitted in New Jersey, where she practices family law. By September 2009 order, this Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York 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 1999 ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468, 65 A.D.3d 1447, 1461, 885 N.Y.S.2d 441 [2009]; see Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d]). Having cured her registration delinquency in February 2019, respondent now applies for her reinstatement pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.16. Petitioner has opposed respondent's motion based upon certain identified deficiencies, and respondent has since submitted supplemental correspondence in an attempt to address petitioner's concerns.
The Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection advises that there are no open claims pertaining to respondent and that it therefore defers to the Court's discretion as to respondent's reinstatement.
--------
Initially, we find 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] ). Given the length of her suspension, respondent properly submits a sworn affidavit in the proper form set forth in appendix C to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240 (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). She has also submitted sufficient threshold documentation in support of her application, including proof that she successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination within one year of her application (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Castle], 161 A.D.3d 1443, 1444, 73 N.Y.S.3d 774 [2018] ).
We further determine that respondent has satisfied the three-part test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension or disbarment (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Gibson], 186 A.D.3d 961, 962, 129 N.Y.S.3d 204 [2020] ; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). The submitted materials establish respondent's compliance with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Wilson], 186 A.D.3d 1874, 1875, 130 N.Y.S.3d 577 [2020]). Additionally, we find that respondent has clearly and convincingly demonstrated that she possesses the requisite character and fitness and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate her to the practice of law in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Mahoney], 179 A.D.3d 1352, 1353, 114 N.Y.S.3d 263 [2020]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Sauer], 178 A.D.3d 1191, 1193, 114 N.Y.S.3d 523 [2019] ; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Koschwitz], 176 A.D.3d 1300, 1301, 107 N.Y.S.3d 728 [2019] ). Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion and reinstate her to the practice of law in New York.
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Clark and Colangelo, JJ., concur.
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 in the State of New York, effective immediately.