| Matter of Dunn |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07246 [111 AD3d 1019] |
| November 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Jill A. Dunn, Respondent. Committee onProfessional Standards, Petitioner. |
—[*1] Steinberg & Cavaliere, LLP, White Plains (Benjamin Zelermyer of counsel), forrespondent.
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1994. She maintained an officefor the practice of law in the City of Albany.
By decision dated July 20, 2011, the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of New York found that respondent knowingly and in bad faith falsely stated in adeclaration filed September 3, 2010 that she was unaware of the existence of a privateannuity agreement, the existence of which was critical to issues before the court, until itwas provided to her on July 27, 2010 (Securities & Exch. Commn. v Smith, 798 FSupp 2d 412 [2011], affd in part, dismissed in part S.E.C. v. Smith, 710 F3d 87[2013]). In the decision, the Magistrate Judge imposed sanctions on respondent pursuantto Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 11, 28 USC § 1927 and the inherentpower of the court. He directed her to disgorge certain fees, publicly admonished her,and directed the clerk to forward a copy of his decision to petitioner (798 F Supp 2d at441-442).[*2]
Based on the federal court's decision, petitionercharged that respondent engaged in fraudulent conduct prejudicial to the administrationof justice adversely reflecting on her fitness as a lawyer by making false statements underoath in written declarations filed in the federal court, in violation of the Rules ofProfessional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 3.3 (a) (1) and 8.4 (c), (d) and (h). Bysubsequent confidential decision, this Court found that the doctrine of collateral estoppelwas properly applied to preclude relitigation of the findings of the Magistrate Judge, andwe granted petitioner's motion for an order declaring that no factual issues were raised(see 22 NYCRR 806.5). We further found respondent guilty of the chargedprofessional misconduct and directed the Clerk of the Court to set a time at whichrespondent may be heard in mitigation.
Having now heard respondent in mitigation, and giving due regard to the sanctionimposed by the Magistrate Judge, i.e., admonishment, respondent's otherwiseunblemished disciplinary record, and her commendable professional reputation, asevidenced by the letters submitted in her behalf by colleagues, we determine that censureis the appropriate discipline herein.
Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that respondent isfound guilty of the professional misconduct charged in the petition; and it is furtherordered that respondent is hereby censured.