Comm. of Prof'l Standards v. Leibowitz (In re Leibowitz)

Full title: In the Matter of SHAMAI LEIBOWITZ, a Suspended Attorney. COMMITTEE ON…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: May 19, 2016

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 3951 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

Attorney Registration No. 4611232

05-19-2016

In the Matter of SHAMAI LEIBOWITZ, a Suspended Attorney. COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS, Petitioner; v. SHAMAI LEIBOWITZ, Respondent.

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for petitioner. Litman, Asche & Gioiella, LLP, New York (Richard M. Asche of counsel), for respondent, and respondent pro se.

Per Curiam

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards, Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for petitioner.

Litman, Asche & Gioiella, LLP, New York (Richard M. Asche of counsel), for respondent, and respondent pro se.

Per Curiam

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2008 and currently resides in Silver Springs, Maryland. In December 2009, respondent pleaded guilty to the federal felony of disclosure of classified information, in violation of 18 USC § 798 (a) (3), and admitted to providing classified information gained in his role as an FBI linguist to an individual who hosted a public Internet blog. This Court determined that respondent had committed a "serious crime" (see Judiciary Law § 90 [4] [d]; 72 AD3d 1190 [2010]) and, by decision entered October 21, 2010, suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of three years (77 AD3d 1167 [2010]). By application sworn to December 9, 2015, respondent now applies for reinstatement. By letter with enclosures dated March 31, 2016, petitioner advises that it opposes respondent's application, to which respondent has replied.

Upon review of the submissions and in consideration of the circumstances in the record before us, we conclude that respondent has not established by clear and convincing evidence that he has fully complied with the provisions of the order suspending him (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12 [b]; see also Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.9 [a], [e]). Accordingly, we deny his application for reinstatement.

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Clark and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the application for reinstatement is denied.