Opinion ID: 798525
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Committee Recommends a Public Reprimand

Text: The record in this matter demonstrates clearly and convincingly that Lawrence Spivak has failed to comply with the Court's rules, including the filing of the CIA form and complying with the Court's Orders, particularly Scheduling Orders. In fact, Mr. Spivak may have taken advantage of the Court's leniency in granting extensions, to the possible detriment of his clients. While Mr. Spivak has implemented new office practices such as a calendaring system and hired a part-time office assistant, the Committee remains concerned that these facts alone will be insufficient to remedy his sub-standard representation, both in the Second Circuit and other venues. Overall, the Committee was deeply troubled by Mr. Spivak's actions. The record shows a disturbing pattern of blatant disregard for the interests of his clients and the Committee seriously considered recommending that Mr. Spivak be temporarily suspended from practicing in the Second Circuit, an Order which could result in further discipline in State Court or other Circuit Courts. However, as serious as his negligence appears to have been, the Committee has not found, on this record, that Mr. Spivak intended any harm to his clients. Given Mr. Spivak's candid admission of responsibility, the absence of additional complaints by his clients, and the fact that he has taken steps to close his practice in the Second Circuit, the Committee does not recommend a suspension at this time. Accordingly, and in light of the mitigating factors set out above, the Committee recommends a public reprimand, coupled with close monitoring of Mr. Spivak's practice of law. In closing, in recommending Mr. Spivak's sanction, the Committee was greatly influenced by both his candor and the difficulty in his family life and sympathetic to his plight [TEXT REDACTED]. Mr. Spivak's inability to practice law would leave him destitute, unable to support his spouse and their son and daughter. 17 In fact, as discussed earlier, there have been a total of five complaints filed against him in New York State. 12