Matter of Ndi (2020 NY Slip Op 04433) Matter of Ndi 2020 NY Slip Op 04433 Decided on August 6, 2020 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: August 6, 2020 PM-101-20 [*1]In the Matter of Benjamin N. Ndi, an Attorney. (Attorney Registration No. 4174777.) Calendar Date: July 6, 2020 Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ. Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Anna E. Remet of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2003. He lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration in Maryland, where he is not admitted to the practice of law. Instead, respondent maintained a federal immigration practice in that jurisdiction on the strength of his New York license. By April 2018 order, the Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent from the practice of law in that state based upon findings that he had, among other things, failed to competently represent a client, neglected his client's legal matter, misappropriated client funds, made false statements of material facts and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing a Maryland client in a personal injury action despite respondent's lack of a license to practice law in that state (Attorney Grievance Commn. of Maryland v Ndi, 458 Md 330, 182 A3d 797 [2018]; see Attorney Grievance Commn. of Maryland v Ndi, 459 Md 42, 184 A3d 25 [2018]).[FN1] Accordingly, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) now moves to impose discipline upon respondent pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.13 due to his misconduct in Maryland. Respondent has not appeared or responded to the motion. Pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 (c), this Court may discipline an attorney for "misconduct committed in [a] foreign jurisdiction." The consequence for respondent's failure to reply to AGC's motion is the waiver of any of his available defenses (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]).[FN2] Accordingly, we find the misconduct established and turn to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction (see Matter of Bailey, 177 AD3d 1079, 1080 [2019]; see also Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]). As a result of respondent's failure to participate in these proceedings, he has presented no mitigating factors for our consideration. We note — as did the Maryland Court of Appeals — the numerous and unchallenged aggravating factors apparent in respondent's deficient representation of vulnerable clients in that jurisdiction (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22). Moreover, respondent's misconduct is further aggravated by his failure to notify this Court and AGC of the disciplinary ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals