Opinion ID: 798525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggravating and

Text: Mitigating Factors The primary mitigating, and most compelling, factor to the Committee is Mr. Spivak's family life. Mr. Spivak testified that [TEXT REDACTED] has taken a significant toll on his law practice. Specifically, Mr. Spivak noted in his written submission to the Court - and repeated again, in oral testimony - that the time he must spend [TEXT REDACTED] is a true detriment and negatively impacts his ability to meet the deadlines of the Second Circuit. In his supplemental response dated December 29, 2010, Mr. Spivak also makes clear that even a short­ term suspension would have devastating, long-term effects upon my practice and my personal life, as he would likely lose the majority of his clients and would not have the financial wherewithal to sustain his household while attempting to re-build his law practice. Mr. Spivak testified that neither he nor his wife is covered by medical insurance. Tr. at 151. He also stated, in reference to his present financial situation, that he has not been making ends meet for a long, long time. Tr. at 151. [TEXT REDACTED], 15 [TEXT REDACTED]. Lawrence Spivak January 29, 2011 Supplemental Response at 3. [TEXT REDACTED]. In short, it appears that a suspension that would disrupt Mr. Spivak's ability to support his family would, indeed, have devastating personal consequences. An additional mitigating factor is that Mr. Spivak did not gain personally from his failure to meet the Court's scheduling orders. Indeed, he appears to have suffered financially in many cases because his failure to file motions to reinstate forced him to forfeit additional fees that he could have been collected had the appeal run its course. Furthermore, Mr. Spivak has taken concrete steps to wind down his practice in the Second Circuit, declining to take on further appeals and finishing those two cases that remain pending. Finally, Mr. Spivak has implemented new systems in his office to avoid mIssmg deadlines including a calendar system and a part-time assistant. With respect to the aggravating factors, Mr. Spivak's flagrant disregard for his clients, or more frankly, the fact that he does not view many of the subjects of the appeals as clients because they were referred to him, must be considered most serious. 16 A second aggravating factor is that his clients before the Second Circuit were immigrants who were fighting deportation from the United States. In page 2 of his December 29, 2010 supplemental response, Mr. Spivak admits his clients' vulnerabi1ity: As I commenced representation, they were all in difficult situations, facing the likelihood that they could not remain in the United States much longer. Finally, Mr. Spivak's prior disciplinary history troubles the Committee and is another aggravating factor. Mr. Spivak revealed in his oral testimony and in his December 29, 2010 15 Mr. Spivak testified that [TEXT REDACTED]. Tr. at 152. 16 Tr. at 88 - 89. 11 written response that there were three other complaints filed in New York State against him. 17 Mr. Spivak's admission of prior complaints may indicate a troubling pattern of behavior.