In re Padilla, 68 N.Y.2d 443 (1986)
The Appellate Division has the authority to suspend attorneys pending disciplinary proceedings when there is notice, and the orders are based on the attorneys’ admissions or uncontroverted evidence of misconduct that poses an immediate threat to the public interest.
Summary
This case addresses whether the Appellate Division can suspend attorneys during disciplinary proceedings based on admissions or uncontroverted evidence of misconduct that immediately threatens the public. The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division does possess this power. The cases of Attorneys Padilla and Gray are discussed. Padilla faced allegations of perjury and obstruction, while Gray admitted to misusing client funds. Both were suspended pending further disciplinary action. The Court of Appeals affirmed these suspensions, emphasizing the Appellate Division’s duty to protect the public from attorneys who fail to maintain necessary standards of integrity.
Facts
Lorenzo Padilla was subject to a Special Referee report concluding he committed perjury and suborned perjury. He failed to respond to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee’s complaints and a judicial subpoena. S. Simpson Gray faced multiple complaints regarding professional conduct, including conversion of client funds, leading to interim suspension in Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Gray admitted to commingling and using client funds, including using $12,000 to pay off debts.
Procedural History
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee sought Padilla’s suspension, which the Appellate Division held in abeyance before ultimately granting the suspension. The Grievance Committee sought Gray’s suspension, which the Appellate Division granted, leading to a disciplinary proceeding. Both Padilla and Gray appealed their suspensions to the Court of Appeals after intermediate appeals; the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal in both cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division has the authority to suspend attorneys pending consideration of disciplinary charges against them, when the suspensions are on notice and the orders are based on the attorneys’ admissions or other uncontroverted evidence of misconduct immediately threatening the public interest.
Holding
Yes, because the Appellate Division has statutory authority and the inherent power to protect the public interest when serious misconduct is admitted or uncontroverted.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized the Judiciary Law § 90 (2), granting the Appellate Division the power to censure, suspend, or remove attorneys guilty of misconduct. While a finding of guilt is typically required, the Court reasoned this authority implicitly includes the power to act when serious misconduct is admitted or uncontroverted and threatens the public. The court distinguished this case from Matter of Nuey, where there was no evidentiary basis for the suspension. Here, both Padilla and Gray presented immediate threats to the public: Padilla through obstruction and Gray through admitted misuse of client funds. The Court reasoned that attorney disciplinary proceedings protect the court and society from lawyers who fail to maintain standards of integrity. The court stated, “[L]awyers are subject to the control and power of the court.” The Court also found that due process requirements were met because both attorneys had notice and an opportunity to respond to the applications for suspension.