Case Name: In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Lynsey E.M. Hotchkies, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-06-15
Citations: 151 A.D.3d 1375
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Lynsey E.M. Hotchkies, Respondent.
Judges: Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 1375–1376

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Committee on Professional Standards, Now Known as Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Lynsey E.M. Hotchkies, Respondent.
[54 NYS3d 329]

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1988 and lists a business address in the United Kingdom with the Office of Court Administration. This Court suspended respondent from the practice of law in New York in 1999 due to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from her failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a and Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts (22 NYCRR) § 118.1 (262 AD2d 702, 704 [1999]; see Judiciary Law § 468-a [5]; Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 8.4 [d]). Respondent moves for her reinstatement (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a]), and petitioner advises, by correspondence from its Chief Attorney, that it does not oppose the motion.
Respondent has self-certified as retired from the practice of law since 1996 (see Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [g]), and her application demonstrates that she has otherwise complied with the order of suspension and this Court's rules. Further, upon reading respondent's affidavit the correspondence in response by petitioner's Chief Attorney, we are satisfied that respondent has the requisite character and fitness for the practice of law, and that it would be in the public's interest to reinstate her to practice in New York (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). Accordingly, mindful that respondent would need to relinquish her retired status and fulfill certain continuing legal education requirements as a precondition to actually practicing law in New York (see Rules of App Div, All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1500.22 [n] [3]; 1500.23 [b]), her motion for reinstatement is granted, and she is reinstated to the practice of law in New York, effective immediately.
Peters, P.J., Garry, Clark, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the motion for reinstatement by respondent is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.