Opinion
D-131-18
10-25-2018
In the MATTER OF Alexander PAVLIV, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 1834423)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Anna E. Remet of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Anna E. Remet of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Before: McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION
Per Curiam.Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1983. He was also admitted that same year in New Jersey, where he currently lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration.
By September 2013 order , respondent was issued a public reprimand by the Supreme Court of New Jersey based upon that Court's findings that respondent failed to disclose a material fact to a tribunal, all while knowing that the tribunal was reasonably certain to have been misled by that omission ( Matter of Pavliv, 215 N.J. 299, 72 A.3d 244 [2013] ). Subsequently, by September 2017 order, respondent was again issued a public reprimand by the Supreme Court of New Jersey due to a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent improperly calculated a contingent fee and failed to provide a client with an accurate settlement statement in contravention of the applicable recordkeeping requirements ( Matter of Pavliv, 230 N.J. 459, 169 A.3d 492 [2017] ). Significantly, respondent failed to notify this Court and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) within 30 days following the imposition of these sanctions in New Jersey as required by Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.13(d).
AGC also takes issue with respondent having certified, in his 2017–2018 biennial registration statement filed in April 2018, that he is retired from the practice of law since, "upon information and belief," he continues to engage in the practice of law in New Jersey. While such an allegation, if proven, would unquestionably constitute professional misconduct (see
Now, by reason of the discipline imposed upon respondent in New Jersey, AGC moves, by order to show cause made returnable September 24, 2018, for an order imposing discipline upon respondent in this state. Respondent has not replied or otherwise responded to AGC's motion or raised any of the available defenses (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b] ); therefore, we grant the motion (see Matter of Tan, 149 A.D.3d 1344, 1345, 52 N.Y.S.3d 171 [2017] ).
Turning to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction, we take note that the public reprimands in New Jersey were tantamount to a censure in this state. Accordingly, we hold that, in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and deter others from committing similar misconduct, respondent should be censured in this state (see Matter of Loigman, 153 A.D.3d 1091, 1092, 57 N.Y.S.3d 442 [2017] ; Matter of Laser, 131 A.D.3d 1336, 1337, 16 N.Y.S.3d 635 [2015] ).
McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted; and it is furtherORDERED that respondent is censured.
Matter of Kahn, 28 A.D.3d 161, 810 N.Y.S.2d 75 [2006] ; Judiciary Law § 468–a ; Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [g] ), in the absence of any admission by respondent (see Matter of Kahn, 28 A.D.3d at 163–164, 810 N.Y.S.2d 75 ) or other incontrovertible proof of respondent's continued practice in New Jersey, we cannot use this allegation as the predicate for an additional finding of misconduct. Nevertheless, AGC remains free to investigate the matter further and pursue disciplinary charges as it sees fit.