Matter of Machado (2018 NY Slip Op 03468) Matter of Machado 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 Decided on May 10, 2018 Appellate Division, First 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 May 10, 2018 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department David Friedman,Justice Presiding, Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Marcy L. Kahn Anil C. Singh,Justices. &em; [*1]In the Matter of Esmeralda Machado, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Esmeralda Machado, Respondent. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Esmeralda Machado, was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on October 25, 2004. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se. Per Curiam Respondent Esmeralda Machado was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on October 25, 2004. Respondent's last registered address was in New Jersey. By order filed July 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of New Jersey permanently barred respondent from appearing pro hac vice in New Jersey for, inter alia, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in that state.[FN1] Now, by notice of motion, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) seeks an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2), the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13, and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, disciplining respondent predicated upon discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and directing her to demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed for the underlying misconduct, or, in the alternative, sanctioning respondent as this Court deems appropriate. Upon receiving the Committee's motion, respondent asked for and was granted a 90-day adjournment to respond, however, no response has been submitted. In February 2016, the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) filed a formal disciplinary complaint charging respondent with violating New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (NJ RPC) rule 3.3(a)(1) (lack of candor to a tribunal), rule 5.5(a)(1) (unauthorized practice of law), rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) stemming from, inter alia, her violating the terms of her pro hac vice admission in New Jersey. The matter was presented to the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) on a certification of default. The DRB found that most of the facts recited in the complaint supported the charges of unethical conduct, deemed respondent's failure to file an answer an admission that the allegations at issue were true, and, as to sanction, recommended that respondent's pro hac vice privileges in New Jersey be suspended until further order of the New Jersey Supreme Court. The DRB's findings of fact are as follows. In September ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals