Opinion ID: 1258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The Referral Orders

Text: The Court initially referred Roman to the Committee by order dated November 20, 2007 (Referral Order I). Referral Order I stated that, since September 2005, the Court had dismissed at least 24 of the 71 petitions for review for which Roman was counsel of record, based upon Roman's failure to comply with the Court's scheduling orders. The order also noted that Roman had submitted boilerplate motions in connection with these defaults; according to the Order, where Roman has moved to reinstate defaulted petitions, he has often relied on the same excuse for failing to comply with the applicable scheduling orders: that he had not received a copy of the scheduling order or had not received a response to his motion for an extension of time. Referral Order I, at 2. The Court also expressed concern that Roman had submitted deficient briefs to the Court. Id., at 2-3.
In a subsequent April 1, 2008 order from the Court (Referral Order II), the Court informed the Committee that in a January 3, 2008 Order, the Court had publicly censured Roman based upon the previously mentioned public censure issued by the New York Appellate Division. [2] Referral Order II, at 1. However, Referral Order 11 explained that Local Rule 46(f) does not provide for such a disposition, and vacated the January 3, 2008 Order. [3] In Referral Order II, the Court also stated that, in March 2007, the Ninth Circuit had sanctioned Roman for, inter alia, failing to properly supervise an employee of his law firm, negligently relying on an inadequate case-management and calendaring system, failing to adequately prosecute cases, and violating various court rules and orders. Referral Order II, at 1 (citing In re Roman, No. 05-80100 [9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2007]). [4] The Court referred to the Committee the issue of whether Roman should be reciprocally disciplined pursuant to Local Rule 46(f), based on the Ninth Circuit's March 30, 2007 order. Id., at 2.
In a third referral order from the Court (Referral Order III), dated April 1, 2008, the Court asked the Committee to consider, in determining appropriate sanctions against Roman: (1) the conduct set forth in Referral Order I, (2) the imposition of sanctions on Roman by the Ninth Circuit in March 2007, and (3) the New York Appellate Division's reciprocal imposition of public censure on Roman. Referral Order III, at 1-2.