Opinion ID: 820639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Committee'sRoielliidStandard of Review

Text: : , ,: ,. ' J' , . ~< :.:i~{<':',,;·~ _~_: I · _.! ::'. : ' ': • Under the RUles o(the,'ComJnjttee on Admissions and Grievances for the United States Court of AppealS_fo~.ilie S~on4,C!:rcuit (Committee Rules): -  'C'::', .. ':':': >::,~::~;~~:~ .:{ . .~.<,.'., , '. . AnartoI;)ley:tnaYi1>¢subj:e(+~~ .disqiJi'Iine or other corrective measures for any act or omisslonthatjriQlat~~thcfIuleg of professional conduct or responsibility of the stateor tiTher jiit-l'sdii:tionwh~ie the attorney maintains his or her principal office. . .. Ariattomeyar~'i'!lliybe'-subject to discipline or oTher corrective measures .- . : \ .. , - -.:' ; . .' . ~-~. ' ~ ••• • .{ •  ; •• > ' •••• . - 2 for any failure to comply with a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure, a Local Rule of the Court, an order or other instruction of the Court, or a rule of professional conduct or responsibility of the Court, or any other conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. Committee Rule 4; see also Fed. R. App. P. 46(c) ([A] court of appeals may discipline an attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule.). Conduct unbecoming a member of the bar includes conduct contrary to professional standards that shows an unfitness to discharge continuing obligations to clients or the courts, or conduct inimical to the administration of justice. More specific guidance is provided by case law, applicable court rules, and 'the lore of the profession,' as embodied in codes of professional conduct. In re: Snyder, 472 U.S. 634,645 (1985). The Committee's finding that an attorney has engaged in misconduct or is otherwise subject to corrective measures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Committee Rule 7(b). If this burden is met, the Committee will then generally consider (a) the duty violated; (b) the lawyer's mental state; (c) the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct; and (d) the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors, in order to determine the sanction, if any, to recommend to the Court. See American Bar Association's Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (ABA Standards) §§ 3.0 et seq., 9.0 et seq. The Committee may recommend to the Court's Grievance Panel a range of sanctions, including disbarment, suspension, public or private reprimand, monetary sanction, removal from pro bono or Criminal Justice Act panels, referral to other disciplinary bodies, supervision by a special master, counseling or treatment, or such other disciplinary or corrective measures as the circumstances may warrant. Committee Rule 6. v. The Legal Standard Cor Identifying Misconduct Courts have consistently treated neglect of client matters and ineffective or incompetent representation as sanctionable conduct. See, e.g., Gadda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 2004); Amnesty Am. v. Town o/W. Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 133 (2d Cir. 2004); In re Dilmaghani, 78 A.D.3d 39,49 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010); Matter 0/ Rabinowitz, 189 A.D.2d 402, • 408 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993); United Stales v. Song, 902 F.2d 609 (7th Cb'. 1990); Matter o/Kraft, 148 A.D.2d 149 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989); In re Bithoney, 486 F.2d 319 (1st Cir. 1973). • Such conduct is also sanctionable under the applicable professional rules and standards. Because Rudrakumaran's conduct at issue in this matter primarily occurred prior to the adoption of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009, it is governed by the New York • Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (the Code). References to the applicable provisions of the Code will be to the Disciplinary Rules (D.R.'') and Ethical Considerations (E.C.). Citations to the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct (URules) are for • reference only to demonstrate the continuity of an attorney's responsibilities and ethical obligations under both the old and current frameworks. Additionally, the ABA Standards call for a range of sanctions from reprimand to disbarment for various fonns of lack of diligence and • , 3 • • lack of competence. ABA Standards §§ 4.4, 4.5. While not binding, the ABA Standards . • provide additional guidance in this matter. With respect to Rudrakumaran' s conduct that is the subject of this Report and • Recommendation, the applicable provisions of the Code make clear that [a] lawyer shall not ... [n]eglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer. D.R. 6-1 01 (a) (3). Additionally, a lawyer has a duty to represent his or her client zealously, D.R. 7-101, E.C. 7.. 1, and should be punctual in • fulfilling all professional commitments, E.C. 7-38. The Code also prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer. See D.R. 1-102(A)(5), (7); see also Rules 8.4(d), (h). This Court • has also made clear in the context of intentional defoults on scheduling orders that an appellant's counsel of record who determines that the appeal will not proceed for any reason is required to inform the Court of the situation and seek to either wi~draw the appeal or withdraw • as counsel. Counsel of record may not end the representation of a client without taking affirmative action, or end an appeal by allowing its dismissal for lack of prosecution. In re Yan, 390 F. App'x. 18,21 (2d Cir. 2010). • VI. Alleged Misconduct • As of the date of the Referral Order, Rudrakumaran was attorney of record in 96 cases before the Court. The Referral Order indicates that Rudrakumaran's failure to comply with scheduling orders resulted in the dismissal of at least 27 cases. Eight of those cases were • reinstated following motions filed by Rudrakumaran, in which he usually attributed· his failure to file the brief to various professional and personal commitments. Of the other 19 cases, Rudrakumaran unsuccessfully moved to reinstate in two cases, both times blaming his default on • professional and personal commitments!' Rudrakumaran did not seek to reinstate the 17 remaining cases. In addition to the 27 cases which were dismissed for failing to comply with scheduling I orders, the Referral Order also notes other patterns of disregard for scheduling orders: Rudrakurnaran filed late briefs at least nine times; Rudrakumaran filed untimely motions for • extension of time on at least three occasionS; Rudrakumaran filed stipulations to withdraw after briefmg deadlines had passed in at least eight cases; and Rudrakumaran filed CIA Forms out of time on at least six occasions. ' •