Opinion ID: 715641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Events Through April 28, 1995

Text: 3 Defendant, referred to as John Doe for purposes of this opinion, is an attorney and an accountant, though not a certified public accountant. Prior to December 1990, he was employed as a tax return preparer by a New York City accounting firm that came under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for preparation of fraudulent income tax returns. The presentence report (PSR) prepared on Doe by the Probation Department stated that, according to the government, the firm's partners instructed its staff accountants preparing tax returns to, inter alia, overstate the value of miscellaneous deductions and claim undocumented deductions without regard to accuracy. 4 In 1988, Doe prepared and filed, for one of the firm's clients, a tax return that falsely claimed deductions of $2,763. Doe's act came to the IRS's attention in 1989. In 1990, Doe began cooperating with the government, left the firm, and opened his own office. Doe's cooperation led to the conviction, following a plea of guilty, of one of the firm's partners. 5 Doe himself pleaded guilty in March 1994 to one count of aiding and abetting the preparation and filing of a false income tax return. At the plea hearing, the court asked, Do you understand that you face a possible loss of your license to practice law or accounting? Doe answered affirmatively. (Plea Hearing Transcript, March 18, 1994, at 12-13.) 6 The statutory maximum prison term for Doe's offense was three years. Because Doe had no criminal history points as calculated under the federal Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines), the applicable Guidelines range of imprisonment was 0-6 months, and he was eligible to be sentenced to one-to-five years' probation rather than imprisonment. The government moved pursuant to Guidelines § 5K1.1 for a downward departure from the Guidelines range in light of Doe's substantial assistance to the government in its investigation. 7 Doe was sentenced some 13 months later. At the sentencing hearing, Doe's attorney Jeffrey C. Hoffman urged the court to be lenient, noting that Doe was sure to be suspended from the practice of law as a result of his conviction, and that as a matter of policy in grievance matters before New York State's Appellate Division, that suspension would not be shorter than his federal period of probation. The court responded as follows: 8 I am fully aware of, Mr. Hoffman, what the Appellate Division does in a great many cases with respect to probation. The argument is made to me where attorneys are brought before me for sentencing for wrongdoings that I shouldn't put them on probation because they will be disbarred or suspended. My answer to it is they are lucky they are not going to be incarcerated for the full three years prior to them being able to walk the streets. They shouldn't be arguing on the issue of whether or not they will be able to practice law, when they themselves have disqualified themselves. 9 18 months probation. $5,000 cost of supervision. A $5,000 fine. A $50 special assessments fine and cost of supervision and the special assessment. 10 (Sentencing Transcript, April 28, 1995, at 5-6.) The court did not mention any particular condition of probation. 11 The written judgment entered on April 28, 1995, included the following preprinted provision: 12 While the defendant is on probation pursuant to this judgment,.... 13 .... 14 13) as directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history or characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant's compliance with such notification requirement. 15 On the same day, Doe signed a form entitled Conditions of Probation and Supervised Release (the Probation Form) that stated [i]t is the order of the Court that you shall comply with the following standard conditions (Probation Form at 1), and contained, as its p 14, the same third-party notification language as p 13 of the judgment, substituting only you and your, respectively, for the defendant and the defendant's (id. at 2).