Court Opinion

ID: 9411721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 17:08:13.229053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:11.393795
License: Public Domain

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Lee) (2023 NY Slip Op 03967)

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Lee)

2023 NY Slip Op 03967

Decided on July 27, 2023

Appellate Division, Third Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered:July 27, 2023

PM-155-23
[*1]In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Sungkyu Scott Lee, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4708426.)

Calendar Date:May 8, 2023

Before:Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Ceresia and McShan, JJ., concur.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany, for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.
Sungkyu Scott Lee, Flemington, New Jersey, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1736 [3d Dept 2019]; see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).
Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to March 28, 2023, and respondent's supplemental filings with exhibits of April 11, 2023, April 27, 2023 and May 3, 2023, and the April 26, 2023 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has satisfied the requirements of Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c); (2) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (3) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (4) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), it is
ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.
Egan Jr., J.P., Clark, Pritzker, Ceresia and McShan, JJ., concur.