Here, respondent engaged in illegal, harassing conduct and violated an order of protection while criminal charges were pending. Nonetheless, weighing the aberrational nature of the instant misconduct with the evidence in mitigation, the sanction of public censure is appropriate. Moreover, the sanction of public censure is consistent with New York precedent for similar levels of misconduct ( see e.g. Matter of Sims, 36 A.D.3d 304, 825 N.Y.S.2d 475 [1st Dept.2006] [public censure was appropriate sanction for attorney who was reprimanded in New Jersey on basis of his conviction of harassment, based on his improper touching of legal secretary]; Matter of McDonald, 241 A.D.2d 255, 671 N.Y.S.2d 120 [2d Dept.1998] [attorney's leaving telephone messages containing vulgar and threatening language on answering machine warranted public censure]; Matter of Wolff, 37 A.D.2d 76, 322 N.Y.S.2d 284 [4th Dept.1971] [attorney's refusal to honor protective orders of Family Court, repeated involvement with police in connection with arrests together with resulting unfavorable publicity warranted censure] ). Accordingly, the Committee's petition should be granted to the extent of confirming the Hearing panel's report and recommendation and respondent should be publicly censured.
In fact, respondent stipulated to her misconduct, the disciplinary rule she violated, and the agreed-upon recommendation of a one-year suspension. Moreover, the Committee's argument that New Jersey's RPC 8.4(b) is analogous to New York's RPC 8.4(b) (formerly DR 1–102[A] [3] ) (illegal conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), is squarely in accord with our precedents and correct ( see Matter of Musmanno, 69 A.D.3d 54, 886 N.Y.S.2d 689 [1st Dept. 2009];Matter of Jacoby, 42 A.D.3d 196, 837 N.Y.S.2d 118 [1st Dept. 2007];Matter of Sims, 36 A.D.3d 304, 825 N.Y.S.2d 475 [1st Dept. 2006];Matter of Maiorino, 301 A.D.2d 53, 750 N.Y.S.2d 264 [1st Dept. 2002] ). Accordingly, as no defense has been presented or exists, the Committee's petition for an order pursuant to the doctrine of reciprocal discipline should be granted.
In this matter, the Disciplinary Board of the Washington State Bar Association imposed a public reprimand, which is the equivalent of public censure in this State ( see Matter of Power, 3 A.D.3d 21, 768 N.Y.S.2d 455 [1st Dept. 2003];Matter of Maiorino, 301 A.D.2d 53, 750 N.Y.S.2d 264 [1st Dept. 2002] ). The Committee asserts that there is no reason to depart from the sanction imposed by Washington. Indeed, such a sanction is in keeping with First Department precedent for similar matters ( see e.g. Matter of Sims, 36 A.D.3d 304, 825 N.Y.S.2d 475 [1st Dept. 2006];Matter of Hawthorne, 309 A.D.2d 285, 765 N.Y.S.2d 607 [1st Dept. 2003] ). Finally, respondent cooperated in the Washington proceeding, he stipulated to his misconduct, and he has no disciplinary history. Accordingly, the Committee's petition for an order imposing discipline should be granted and respondent should be publicly censured in accordance with the discipline imposed in the State of Washington.
the woman against her will and placing her hand on his groin for sexual pleasure. By this conduct, respondent failed to act in accordance with the high standards imposed upon members of the bar and his misconduct reflects adversely on his fitness as a lawyer and upon the legal profession. As the Referee found, while a mitigating factor, respondent did not establish that his depression caused his sexually abusive conduct toward his client ( see Matter of Alongi, 276 A.D.2d 175, 177, 716 N.Y.S.2d 491 [2000] ). Although there have been instances in which this Court has censured attorneys for sexually related misconduct, such matters are inapposite because the abuse in those cases was not directed at a client ( see e.g. Matter of Najdovski, 18 A.D.3d 27, 794 N.Y.S.2d 307 [2005] [attorney censured for, inter alia, misdemeanor conviction of sexual abuse in the third degree for having made sexual advances to a woman who he had dinner and drinks with after she applied for a job in his firm]; Matter of Sims, 36 A.D.3d 304, 825 N.Y.S.2d 475 [2006] [respondent, convicted in New Jersey of violation of harassment for pinching secretary's buttocks and then censured in New Jersey disciplinary proceeding, censured by this Court] ). Accordingly, the Committee's motion should be granted to the extent of confirming the Hearing Panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the charges, disaffirming the Hearing Panel's recommended sanction of a three-month suspension, and respondent suspended from the practice of law for a period of nine months effective 30 days from the date hereof and until further order of this Court.
The imposition of reciprocal discipline is therefore appropriate ( Matter of Vohra, 303 AD2d 61; Matter of Gold, 240 AD2d 74). With regard to the issue of sanctions, the state where respondent practiced law at the time and where the offense was committed has the greatest interest ( see Matter of Sims, 36 AD3d 304; Matter of Anschell, 286 AD2d 173). A censure is also in accord with the mitigation presented and this Court's precedent under similar circumstances ( see Matter of Hammer, 253 AD2d 226 [attorney with a disciplinary record censured for commingling personal and client funds and failing to maintain proper records where no misappropriation or loss of client funds]; compare Matter of Fisher, 43 AD3d 173 [attorney censured for record-keeping violations, nonvenal conversion and commingling, where attorney expressed remorse and cooperated]; Matter of Cohen, 12 AD3d 29 [attorney with prior admonition censured for borrowing money from a client, nonvenal conversion and commingling of client funds, and failing to keep proper escrow account records, where conduct was aberrational and attorney expressed remorse and cooperated]). Accordingly, the Committee's petition pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.3 should be granted, and respondent censured.