Matter of Espinoza (2021 NY Slip Op 05926) Matter of Espinoza 2021 NY Slip Op 05926 Decided on October 28, 2021 Appellate Division, First 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: October 28, 2021 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department Dianne T. Renwick,J.P., Judith J. Gische Barbara R. Kapnick Peter H. Moulton Bahaati E. Pitt, JJ. Motion No. 2021-03076 Case No. 2021-03300 [*1]In the Matter of Rafael J. Espinoza, (Admitted as Rafael Juan Espinoza), an Attorney and Counselor-at Law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Rafael J. Espinoza, (OCA Atty Reg. No. 5088901.), Respondent. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, as Rafael Juan Espinoza, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the Second Judicial Department on January 16, 2013. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Norma I. Melendez, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent, pro se. Per Curiam Respondent Rafael J. Espinoza was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on January 16, 2013, under the name Rafael Juan Espinoza. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained a law office within the First Judicial Department. The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) seeks an order pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(3) immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court based upon his failure to comply with lawful demands of the Committee in its investigation. Respondent, pro se, has not submitted a response to this motion. Between October 2019 and July 2020, the Committee received five complaints against respondent alleging, inter alia, neglect, failure to communicate, deceit, misrepresentation and fraud. Between November 22, 2019 and August 5, 2020, a Committee Staff investigator sent respondent numerous letters and left him several telephone messages in an attempt to obtain answers to the complaints. On November 2, 2020, respondent submitted a response to one complaint filed by an immigration client. On January 4, 2021, this Court issued a judicial subpoena directing respondent's appearance at an examination under oath (EUO) on January 27, 2021. On January 27, respondent, pro se, was examined under oath remotely (due to the COVID-19 pandemic) during which he testified from information and documents that were not previously provided to the Committee. For example, with respect to the first complaint filed against him, respondent testified that he stopped working on the client's asylum petition after he received a "secret letter" from the client's sister, alleging that the petition would be based on fraud, and he also claimed to have an audio message contradicting the complainant's allegation that he improperly charged her credit card $2,250 instead of the $1,000 she had authorized. With respect to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals