Opinion
PM-80-20
06-11-2020
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; v. John Akumbom Sam–Kubam, Respondent (Attorney Registration No. 4276192)
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner. John Akumbom Sam–Kubam, London, United Kingdom, respondent pro se.
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for petitioner.
John Akumbom Sam–Kubam, London, United Kingdom, respondent pro se.
Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ON MOTION
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2004 and currently lists a business address in London, United Kingdom. He was suspended from the practice of law by a 2014 order of this Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with his attorney registration requirements beginning with the 2006–2007 biennial period ( Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a, 113 A.D.3d 1020, 1050, 979 N.Y.S.2d 548 [2014] ; see Judiciary Law § 468–a [5] ; Rules of Professional Conduct [ 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ] rule 8.4[d] ). Respondent now applies for his reinstatement pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.16. Petitioner has opposed respondent's application owing, in part, to concerns over respondent's statements regarding the nature of his employment during the period of suspension. In response, respondent has submitted correspondence and additional documents seeking to address petitioner's concerns.
The Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection advises that there are no open claims pertaining to respondent and that it therefore defers to the Court's discretion as to respondent's reinstatement.
--------
Initially, we find that respondent has satisfied the threshold documentary requirements for an attorney seeking reinstatement from a suspension of more than six months (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Nenninger], 180 A.D.3d 1317, 1318, 116 N.Y.S.3d 920 [2020] ). Specifically, respondent has appropriately submitted a duly-sworn affidavit in the form provided for 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]; compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Hughes–Hardaway], 152 A.D.3d 951, 952, 55 N.Y.S.3d 680 [2017] ). Further, Office of Court Administration records demonstrate that respondent is now current in his registration requirements and has cured his longstanding delinquency. Finally, respondent provides proof that he successfully completed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination in November 2019, satisfying the requirement of Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters ( 22 NYCRR) § 1240.16(b) (compare Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [2017] ).
Further, we have determined 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 [Samson], 176 A.D.3d 1566, 1566, 111 N.Y.S.3d 753 [2019] ; Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [ 22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a] ). Based on our review of respondent's application and supplemental materials, we are satisfied that the nature of his employment during his period of suspension did not require him to practice law or utilize his New York law license (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Wang], 183 A.D.3d 1225, 1227, 124 N.Y.S.3d 663, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 03058, 2020 WL 2759578, *1 [2020] ). Having considered the foregoing, together with respondent's attestations that he did not practice law or derive any income from the practice of law during his suspension, we find that respondent has clearly and convincingly established his compliance with our disciplinary order and Rules of this Court (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Maurits], 169 A.D.3d 1153, 1154, 93 N.Y.S.3d 717 [2019] ). Finally, we also find that respondent's application sufficiently demonstrates that he has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate him to the practice of law in New York (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Sauer], 178 A.D.3d 1191, 1193–1194, 114 N.Y.S.3d 523 [2019] ). Accordingly, we grant respondent's motion and reinstate him to the practice of law.
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.
Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Aarons and Colangelo, JJ., concur.