Matter of Matemu (2021 NY Slip Op 04078) Matter of Matemu 2021 NY Slip Op 04078 Decided on June 24, 2021 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:June 24, 2021 PM-90-21 [*1]In the Matter of Japheth Nthautha Matemu, an Attorney. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Japheth Nthautha Matemu, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4607313.) Calendar Date:May 3, 2021 Before:Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons, Pritzker and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ. Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for petitioner. Dreyer Boyajian LLP, Albany (Joshua R. Friedman of counsel), for respondent. Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2008 and resides in North Carolina, where he is not admitted but practices federal immigration law on the strength of his New York license. In January 2021, petitioner commenced this disciplinary proceeding alleging, in three charges, that respondent had violated five Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) by, among other things, unreasonably disclosing confidential information to the disadvantage of a client, failing to promptly refund an unearned fee and attempting to deceive petitioner during the course of its investigation of his professional misconduct. In lieu of filing an answer, respondent has instead joined with petitioner in moving this Court by consent to resolve the petition by imposing a suspension from the practice of law of no more than six months in duration. As required by Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8 (a) (5) (i) (A), the parties have submitted a stipulation of facts. Consequently, it is undisputed that respondent's actions violated Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 1.6 (a); 1.16 (e); 3.3 (b); and 8.4 (c) and (d). In compliance with Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8 (a) (5) (i) (b) and (5) (iii), respondent has also submitted an affidavit in which he has conditionally admitted the relevant facts and acknowledges that the admitted facts establish that he engaged in the stipulated professional misconduct. Further, respondent consents to the agreed-upon discipline of a suspension from the practice of law of no more than six months, which consent is given freely and voluntarily without coercion or duress. Lastly, respondent attests that he is fully aware of the consequences of consenting to such discipline. As is required by Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8 (a) (5) (i) (c), the parties also set forth in the joint affirmation the applicable factors to be considered with respect to aggravation and mitigation. In regard to aggravating factors, the affirmation sets forth respondent's disciplinary history, which includes three prior instances of private discipline (see e.g. Matter of Parrinello, 156 AD3d 1216, 1217-1218 [2017] Matter of Rockmacher, 150 AD3d 1528, 1529 [2017]). As for mitigation, respondent expresses his remorse for his misconduct and poor judgment. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals