Matter of Papazian (2019 NY Slip Op 01546) Matter of Papazian 2019 NY Slip Op 01546 Decided on March 5, 2019 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 March 5, 2019 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial Department Hon.John W. Sweeny, Jr.,Justice Presiding, Peter Tom Troy K. Webber Marcy L. Kahn Cynthia S. Kern,Justices. M-5783 [*1]In the Matter of William S. Papazian, (admitted as William Saro Papazian), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, William S. Papazian, Respondent. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, William S. Papazian, 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 July 6, 1987. Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Lance Philadelphia, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent pro se. PER CURIAM Respondent William S. Papazian was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 6, 1987, under the name William Saro Papazian. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained a registered address in Arizona, where he is admitted to practice and resides. The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) seeks an order, pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13, for this Court to impose reciprocal discipline on respondent, predicated upon the discipline of reprimand imposed by the Supreme Court of Arizona. In November 2016, the State Bar of Arizona filed a formal complaint against respondent. In March 2017, respondent entered into an Agreement for Discipline by Consent in which he admitted to misconduct in connection with three separate immigration matters and agreed to public discipline in the form of a reprimand. Specifically, in 2014 and 2015, several clients retained respondent to represent them in immigration matters and paid him legal fees. During the course of representation, respondent failed to reply to the clients' phone calls, communicate with the clients about their cases or otherwise perform work on some of their cases. Respondent also failed to supervise his legal assistant's meetings with some of the clients. Respondent returned the clients' legal fees only after each client filed a complaint against him. Respondent conditionally admitted that his conduct violated Arizona's Ethics Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties agreed that after taking into account the aggravation (multiple offenses and substantial experience in the practice of law [ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions §§ 9.22(d) and 9.22(i)]) and mitigation (no prior discipline and personal or emotional problems [id. §§ 9.32(a) and 9.32(c)]), a sanction of reprimand was warranted. In April 2017, the Arizona Supreme Court accepted the parties' Agreement for Discipline by Consent and ordered that respondent be reprimanded. The AGC commenced this proceeding for reciprocal discipline after ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals