Matter of Irwin (2020 NY Slip Op 04743) Matter of Irwin 2020 NY Slip Op 04743 Decided on August 26, 2020 Appellate Division, Second Department Per Curiam. 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 on August 26, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA MARK C. DILLON RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ. 2019-10535 [*1]In the Matter of Stephen B. Irwin, admitted as Stephen Brian Irwin, an attorney and counselor-at-law. (Attorney Registration No. 2087369) The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on July 27, 1988, under the name Stephen Brian Irwin. By order to show cause dated September 24, 2019, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why an order should not be made and entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 imposing discipline upon him for the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dated July 18, 2019. Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, NY (Sara Mustafa of counsel), for Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. Stephen B. Irwin, Flushing, NY, respondent pro se. PER CURIAM. OPINION & ORDER By order dated July 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (hereinafter the District Court) censured the respondent. The respondent was referred to the Committee on Grievances of the District Court by the Honorable Richard J. Sullivan, United States District Judge, who sanctioned the respondent $5,000 based on his conduct in Guo Qiang Xu v Umi Sushi, Inc. (No. 15-CV-4710 [RJS]) (hereinafter the Guo Qiang Xu action). As revealed in Judge Sullivan's opinion and order dated June 21, 2016 (hereinafter the sanction order), the underlying facts involve, inter alia, the respondent making false representations and misleading statements to the District Court about his connection with the Guo Qiang Xu action, his representation of the plaintiff in that action, his prior connections with two attorneys, his relationship with a disbarred attorney, and his acting at the behest of a disbarred attorney.The Sanction Order On February 26, 2016, in the Guo Qiang Xu action, the District Court directed the plaintiff to file a response to the defendants' premotion letter regarding their contemplated motion for summary judgment and to explain why the plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing to file a response, which was required under the court's Individual Rules and Practices. The court directed all counsel to appear on March 14, 2016. The respondent appeared on the plaintiff's behalf on March 14, 2016, although the plaintiff's counsel of record was Min Hui Ye, who, according to the complaint, was an attorney with REP Law Associates (hereinafter the firm) in Flushing. The docket sheet for the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals