Matter of Jing Tan (2018 NY Slip Op 05985) Matter of Jing Tan 2018 NY Slip Op 05985 Decided on September 6, 2018 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: September 6, 2018 [*1]In the Matter of JING TAN, a Suspended Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 2967420) Calendar Date: July 30, 2018 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Devine, Aarons and Rumsey, 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. Jing Tan, Gaithersburg, Maryland, respondent pro se. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1999. She currently lists a Maryland business address with the Office of Court Administration. Respondent, who is not licensed to practice law in Maryland, nonetheless maintains an immigration law practice in that state and relies on her New York law license to engage in said practice. Pursuant to a September 2016 order of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, respondent was suspended from the practice of law in that state for 60 days, based upon findings that she had violated eight provisions of the former Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct (Matter of Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v Tan, 450 Md 96, 146 A3d 459 [2016])[FN1]. Upon the ensuing motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) and respondent's default thereon, this Court thereafter suspended respondent from the practice of law for a period of 60 days due to the discipline imposed upon her in Maryland (149 AD3d 1344 [2017]). Respondent now moves for her reinstatement [FN2]. In so doing, respondent submitted an [*2]application purporting to comply with Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.16 (d) and appendix D, which set forth the reinstatement requirements for attorneys who have been suspended for less than six months. AGC opposes respondent's motion on the basis that, inasmuch as she has now been suspended for more than 16 months, respondent must comply with the reinstatement procedures applicable to a respondent who has been suspended for more than six months (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b]). In her reply to that submission,[FN3] respondent requests that this Court accept her reinstatement application as properly filed pursuant to the requirements set forth for respondents who have been suspended for less than six months and grant her requested relief. Notably, as a general rule, a respondent seeking reinstatement from suspension or disbarment must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) that he or she has complied with the order of suspension/disbarment and the applicable rules of the Court, (2) that he or she possesses the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and (3) that his or her reinstatement "would be in the public interest" (Rules ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals