State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: April 9, 2015 D-21-15 

___________________________________

In the Matter of BIBI B.

MUSAFIRI, an Attorney.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANDARDS,

Petitioner;

BIBI B. MUSAFIRI,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 4400867)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: January 8, 2015

Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany (Michael K. Creaser of counsel), for petitioner.

O'Connell and Aronowitz, Albany (David E. Nardolillo of

counsel), for respondent.

__________

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2006

and resides in Virginia.

By petition containing six charges of professional

misconduct with specifications, petitioner commenced this

disciplinary proceeding against respondent charging her with,

among other things, neglecting and failing to communicate with a

client in Virginia who had retained respondent to represent her

in an immigration matter and failing to cooperate with petitioner
-2- D-21-15 

in its investigation of that client's complaint. Following

respondent's unsuccessful motion seeking an order disqualifying

petitioner or, alternatively, dismissing all of the charges in

the petition, petitioner's cross motion for appointment of a

referee to hear the matter was granted by this Court. When

respondent failed to appear at the subsequently scheduled hearing

– despite being provided with adequate notice thereof – it was

held in her absence. Subsequently, although the Referee agreed

to provide respondent with an opportunity to move to reopen, she

did not appear, despite being granted an adjournment in order to

do so. The Referee sustained the petition in its entirety and

petitioner moved to confirm the Referee's report. Respondent

cross-moved to vacate the Referee's findings of fact and for the

assignment of a different referee.

This Court, in a confidential decision and order entered

January 12, 2015, thereafter denied respondent's cross motion in

its entirety and granted petitioner's motion to the extent that

we found that a fair preponderance of the evidence supported the

Referee's determination as to charges I through V of the

petition. Consequently, we found respondent guilty of neglecting

a client matter (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR

1200.0] rule 1.3 [b]), failing to properly communicate with a

client (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule

1.4), improperly withdrawing from her representation of a client

(see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 1.16

[e]), engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of

justice by failing to cooperate with petitioner (see Rules of

Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]), and

engaging in misleading, deceptive and prejudicial conduct during

an examination before petitioner that adversely reflects upon her

fitness as a lawyer (see Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR

1200.0] rules 8.4 [c], [d], [h]).

Now, having considered respondent's submission in

mitigation, we conclude that, under the circumstances presented,

the appropriate disciplinary sanction for her established

professional misconduct is censure (see Matter of Burns, 123 AD3d

1284, 1285 [2014]). Furthermore, in light of concerns relative

to respondent's knowledge and ethics regarding client

communication and her obligation to cooperate with petitioner
-3- D-21-15 

(see e.g. Matter of Crockett, 120 AD3d 878, 880 [2014]), we

additionally direct that, within one calendar year of the entry

of this decision, respondent submit documentation to petitioner

that she has completed 12 credit hours of accredited continuing

legal education in ethics and professionalism.1

McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of the professional

misconduct charged and specified in charges I through V of the

petition of charges; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is censured.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court

1 We are mindful that, as an attorney practicing out of

state, respondent appears to presently be exempt from the

continuing legal education courses otherwise required of all

attorneys in this state (see 22 NYCRR 1500.5 [b] [1]; 1500.22

[a], [n]).