Opinion ID: 204855
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: introduction

Text: By Orders dated May 30, 2007, and March 10, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Court's Order) referred Roy R. Kulcsar to this Committee, for investigation of his conduct before the Court and preparation of a report on whether he should be subject to disciplinary or other corrective measures. Kulesar is an active federal criminal practitioner. He was referred to this Committee because the Court's records suggest that Kulesar Has failed to abide by this Court's rules and orders, has failed to cooperate with this Court's personnel in the processing of appeals in which he was an attorney of record, and may have failed to protect the interests of his clients. In particular, the Court noted four criminal appeals that were dismissed for default. First, in US. v. Ramirez, 06-5583-cr, Kulcsar filed the notice of appeal but did not file the appellate brief by the due date. The Court then directed Kulcsar either to file tli{!brief or to file a stipulation withdrawing the appeal, but Kulesar did not respond to that order. In both US. v. Vinasco (Montoya), 03-1064-cr, and us. v. Cirineo (Lama), 02-1 1 lO-cr(L), 02-1248-cr (Gon), Kulesar defaulted on the briefing schedules. Court employees telephoned Kulesar about the overdue briefs. Kulcsar either could not be reached or did not respond to the phone calls, and both cases were dismissed. Lastly, in Us. v. Williams, 97-1043-cr, Kulesar also failed tp file the brief on time, and the case was dismissed. At the time of the referral, Kulesar had also defaulted on a fifth case: In Us. v. De La Cruz, 06-5878-cr, the case manager called Kulesar's office in March, April, and May 2007 about the overdue brief, but there was no answer to those calls. The appeal was dismissed on May 25, 2007. In a sixth case, the Court expressed concern about repeated missed deadlines. In US. v. Narvaez (Gamboa), 03-1 786-cr, Kulcsar was granted two extensions oftime, even though he did not move for additional time until after the deadline had passed and the Clerk's office left him messages about the brief. The final order on November 3, 2004, stated that no further extensions would be granted, but Kulcsar still did not file the brief until four months after that final deadline, along with an Anders motion. Kulcsar then informed the Court that he intended to withdraw the Anders motion, but despite multiple messages from the clerk's office, he did not do so. He finally informed the Court in May 2006 that he intended to proceed with the Anders motion, but he had not complied with the notice requirements. Again, Kulcsar did not respond to the Court's order. As a result, the Anders motion was denied, Kulcsar was denied his CJA fees, and new counsel was appointed. Also, the Court expressed concern about repeated extensions of time to file appellate briefs, often as many as five times in one case. In addition, the docket sheets reflect repeated unsuccessful attempts to reach Kulcsar, many times without even being able to reach an answering machine to leave a message. Finally, in the March 10,2008, referral, the Court noted that Rafael Rodriguez sued Kulcsar in the U.S. District Court, claiming Kulcsar had fraudulently induced him to pursue a Rule 35 motion by making false representations about the likelihood of success. The action was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the Court has asked the Committee to determine if the behavior relates to any of the previous behavior or should be referred to another disciplinary committee. The Committee recommends that Kulcsar be publicly reprimanded. In addition, Kulcsar should be directed to ensure that at all times he represents a party in pending matter before the Court, the Court is provided with a current telephone number at which a person or recording machine will answer during any time the Court is open for business and that his mail is timely brought to his attention. Further, Kulcsar should be required, in connection with his practice in any federal court in the Second Circuit or in any federal administrative agency whose action is subject to the Second Circuit's review, to submit to the Committee sworn statements identifying under oath each and every instance during each of the four reporting periods described below in which (1) a submission is not filed or filed out oftime; (2) an extension oftime is requested; (3) an application is made for permission to make a late filing only after the due date has passed; or (4) a telephone message from the Court is not returned within three business days. The following constitutes the Committee's report and recommendation to impose discipline on Kulcsar. 2