Opinion
PM-39-21
04-01-2021
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; Seema Akhtar Aziz, Also Known as Seema Aziz-Khan, Respondent.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner. Seema Aziz-Khan, Plantation, Florida, respondent pro se.
(Attorney Registration No. 2885242.) Before: Lynch, J.P., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner.
Seema Aziz-Khan, Plantation, Florida, respondent pro se.
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1998, but was suspended from the practice of law by January 2014 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her failure to comply with her attorney registration obligations beginning in 2004 (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a , 113 AD3d 1020, 1023 [2014]). She has since cured her registration delinquency and now moves for her reinstatement to the practice of law by motion marked returnable on the adjourned date of March 1, 2021. Petitioner opposes the motion based upon certain identified deficiencies, and respondent has since submitted supplemental correspondence addressing petitioner's concerns.
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 AD3d 1317, 1318 [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 prior to 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 AD3d 1443, 1444 [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 AD3d 961, 962 [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 AD3d 1874, 1875 [2020]). Additionally, we find that respondent has clearly and convincingly demonstrated that she possesses the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate her in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Abramson], 189 AD3d 2050, 2051 [2020]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Mahoney], 179 AD3d 1352, 1353 [2020]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Koschwitz], 176 AD3d 1300, 1301 [2019]). Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion and reinstate her to the practice of law in New York.
Lynch, J.P., Clark, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, 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.