Matter of Alexandrovich (2019 NY Slip Op 05375) Matter of Alexandrovich 2019 NY Slip Op 05375 Decided on July 3, 2019 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided and Entered: July 3, 2019 [*1]In the Matter of MARINA N. ALEXANDROVICH, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 4201836) Calendar Date: April 15, 2019 Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Rumsey and Pritzker, JJ. Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Law Offices of Michael S. Ross, New York City (Michael S. Ross of counsel), for respondent MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Per Curiam.Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2004. She lists a business address in Arizona with the Office of Court Administration. Although respondent is not admitted to practice in Arizona, she maintains an immigration practice in that state on the strength of her New York license. Between 2014 and 2018, disciplinary orders were separately imposed upon respondent in the form of, among other things, a reprimand, probation and an informal admonition by, respectively, the Supreme Court of Arizona, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Executive Office for Immigration Review for sustained acts of professional misconduct in a variety of matters. Notably, in the course of these proceedings, respondent was found guilty of, among other things, engaging in conduct lacking competence and diligence, commencing frivolous litigation, neglecting the interests of a client and making misleading statements. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) now moves, by order to show cause with an adjourned date of April 15, 2019, to impose discipline upon respondent pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 (a) and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.13 based upon her established professional misconduct. Respondent has submitted papers in opposition and AGC has submitted a reply affidavit with leave of the Court. Inasmuch as respondent presents matters in mitigation but does not contest any of the findings of misconduct or raise any of the available defenses (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]), we grant AGC's motion (see Matter of Tan, 149 AD3d 1344, 1345 [2017]). Turning to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction, we take note of the nature of respondent's sustained misconduct in the course of her immigration practice in Arizona serving a very vulnerable clientele, which included, among other things, a sustained charge that [*2]she failed to act with reasonable diligence in performing a service for a client (see generally ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions § 4.4). Upon consideration of respondent's arguments in mitigation and AGC's opposing submission, we observe that respondent's misconduct is aggravated by, among other things, a prior informal admonition in Arizona and her failure to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals