Opinion
No. PM-125-22
07-14-2022
In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Appellant; Lonnie James Bean, Also Known as Lonnie James Bean III, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 5119896.)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Lonnie James Bean, Austin, Texas, respondent pro se.
Calendar Date: April 18, 2022
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Lonnie James Bean, Austin, Texas, respondent pro se.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2013 and lists a Texas business address with the Office of Court Administration. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law in New York by May 2019 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his noncompliance with the statutory attorney registration requirements from 2015 onward (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468 , 172 A.D.3d 1706, 1711 [2019]; see Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]; Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1). Upon curing his registration delinquency in March 2021, respondent has now moved, by application marked returnable on April 18, 2022, for his reinstatement. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) has been heard in response to the application.
Finding no open claims, the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection advises that it does not oppose respondent's reinstatement application.
Along with certain procedural requirements, respondent must satisfy the substantive test applicable to all attorneys seeking reinstatement from suspension, by establishing, "by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) he or she has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of this Court, (2) he or she has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) it would be in the public's interest to reinstate the attorney to practice in New York" (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1317-1318 [2020]). Given the duration of his suspension, respondent has appropriately submitted a duly-sworn form affidavit as is provided 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]). He has also provided proof of his timely passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). Although respondent concededly failed to file the required affidavit of compliance following the order of suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15 [f]; part 1240, appendix C, ¶ 21), we find that the attestations included in his appendix C affidavit have sufficiently cured this defect (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Lawrence], 193 A.D.3d 1318, 1319 [2021]).
As for the balance of respondent's application, we conclude that his submission is sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he has satisfied the above-referenced substantive requirements. Respondent has adequately demonstrated his compliance with the order of suspension. As to his character and fitness, respondent's application materials raise no cause for concern, inasmuch as, among other things, he reports no criminal record and further attests that he has not been the subject of any adverse disciplinary action or governmental investigation since his suspension (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] part 1240, appendix C, ¶¶ 14, 30, 31). We additionally conclude that respondent's reinstatement would be in the public interest. Giving due consideration to the fact that the nature of respondent's professional misconduct does not raise any concerns regarding harm to a client, as well as his otherwise spotless disciplinary history, we also find that no detriment would inure to the public from respondent's reinstatement (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Giordano], 186 A.D.3d 1827, 1829 [2020]; Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law §468-a [Serbinowski], 164 A.D.3d 1049, 1051 [2018]). We accordingly grant respondent's motion and reinstate him to the practice of law in New York, effective immediately.
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, 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.