Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2018/2018-ny-slip-op-07029.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 15:50:27
Document Index: 200613760

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', '§ 7206', '§ 1240', '§ 806', '§ 1240', '§ 90', '§ 1240']

Matter of Canney :: 2018 :: New York Appellate Division, Third Department Decisions :: New York Case Law :: New York Law :: US Law :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › New York Case Law › New York Appellate Division, Third Department Decisions › 2018 › Matter of Canney
Matter of Canney
Matter of Canney 2018 NY Slip Op 07029 Decided on October 18, 2018 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.
[*1]In the Matter of JOHN RICHARD CANNEY III, an Attorney.
(Attorney Registration No. 5143292) Calendar Date: September 24, 2018
Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, Burlington, Vermont (Tristram J. Coffin of counsel), for respondent.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2013. He lists a business address with the Office of Court Administration in Vermont, where he was admitted in 1979.
In May 2017, respondent was suspended from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Vermont upon his plea of guilty before the US District Court for the District of Vermont to two felony counts of willfully filing false individual and corporate tax returns (see 26 USC § 7206 [1])[FN1]. Respondent thereafter
submitted an affidavit of resignation from the Vermont bar, which application was accepted, and respondent was disbarred in Vermont upon his consent, nunc pro tunc to May 30, 2017, the date he had been placed on interim suspension.[FN2]
Now, by order to show cause marked returnable September 24, 2018, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) moves this Court 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 based upon the discipline imposed in Vermont. In response, respondent does not contest AGC's motion.
Respondent's lack of opposition to AGC's motion results in the waiver of his available defenses (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]) and, accordingly, we grant AGC's motion. Turning to the issue of the appropriate disciplinary sanction, we note that a resignation in a foreign jurisdiction is "tantamount to a disciplinary resignation in this state" (Matter of Vega, 147 AD3d 1196, 1198 [2017]) and "[h]ad respondent taken the same action and resigned while disciplinary charges were pending against him in New York, the result would be [disbarment]" (Matter of Bialobrzeski, 155 AD3d 1427, 1428 [2017]). Accordingly, given these factors, and considering all the relevant circumstances presented herein, we conclude that, in order to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession and deter others from committing similar misconduct, respondent should be disbarred from the practice of law in this state.
Footnote 1: We note that we have previously deemed this federal felony to be a "serious crime" within the meaning of Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d) (see Matter of Kremner, 123 AD3d 1219 [2014]).
Footnote 2: Although the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department acknowledges that respondent supplied notice of his conviction of the federal felonies, respondent nevertheless failed to notify this Court within 30 days that he had been suspended and then disbarred in Vermont (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [d]).