In the Matter of Carlos A. Martir, Jr., (admitted as Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr.), an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance CommitteeM-6909 for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Carlos A. Martir, Jr., Respondent.
Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New
York (Raymond Vallejo, of counsel), for petitioner.
Deborah A. Scalise, Esq., for respondent.
David Friedman, Justice Presiding, Dianne T. Renwick, Peter
Tom, Jeffrey K. Oing, Anil C. Singh, Justices.
proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee
for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Carlos A.
Martir, Jr., was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York
at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for
the First Judicial Department on July 7, 1980.
Carlos A. Martir, Jr., was admitted to the practice of law in
the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on
July 7, 1980, under the name Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr. At
all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent has
maintained an office for the practice of law within the First
order dated March 3, 2016, the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania publicly reprimanded respondent
for his repeated failure to appear before the court in a
criminal matter in accordance with its scheduling orders.
Respondent was found in contempt and fined $1, 500.
Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) of the First
Department now seeks an order pursuant to Judiciary Law
§ 90(2) and the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters
(22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 and the doctrine of reciprocal
discipline on the basis of the discipline imposed by the
Disciplinary Review Board of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania. The Committee seeks the imposition of a public
censure. Respondent does not oppose the imposition of
reciprocal discipline, but requests, in the alternative,
private discipline in the manner of an admonition.
does not dispute that he failed to appear in a Pennsylvania
criminal proceeding for jury selection on July 1, 2014, which
resulted in the court's order directing him to appear on
July 23, 2014 for a contempt hearing, at which he also failed
to appear. The contempt hearing was adjourned to July 30,
2014, at which time respondent was found to have been in
contempt of the court's scheduling order. His sentencing
was scheduled for October 14, 2014, for which he appeared
late. Respondent was fined $1, 500 for his contempt, which he
subsequently was charged with violations of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3 and 8.4(d), for,
respectively, his failure to provide competent representation
to a client, failure to act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client, and conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice. On or about March 3, 2016,
the violations pertaining to rules 1.3 and 8.4(d) were
upheld, and a sanction of a public reprimand was imposed.
During respondent's appearance on April 14, 2016, the
Disciplinary Board rejected his earlier explanations for his
omissions and noted that he had been privately disciplined on
three prior occasions for neglect of client matters and
misrepresenting matters to the court.
the Committee advises that respondent failed to inform it of
the outcome of the Pennsylvania disciplinary proceeding in
violation of 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d). In reciprocal discipline
cases, we often give significant weight to the sanction
imposed by the jurisdiction in which the charges were
originally brought (Matter of Jaffe, 78 A.D.3d 152,
158 [1st Dept 2010). Although respondent, in seeking an
admonition as an alternative sanction, submits as mitigation
information which may reflect well on his private life and
some aspects of his professional service, nevertheless he
fails to establish the defenses specified by 22 NYCRR
1240.13. He has displayed a pattern of conduct that
constitutes multiple professional breaches, and the
Pennsylvania disciplinary violations are the equivalent of
New York's Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR
1200.0) rules 1.3(a) and 8.4(d). We have found public censure
to be an appropriate sanction for an attorney's failure
to adhere to court scheduling (Matter of Mumford,
171 A.D.3d 180');">171 A.D.3d 180 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Hoffman,
34 A.D.3d 1');">34 A.D.3d 1 [1st Dept 2006]) and for disregarding court
orders (Matter of Gluck, 153 A.D.3d 301');">153 A.D.3d 301 [1st Dept
2017]), notwithstanding proposed mitigation.
the motion for reciprocal discipline should be granted and
respondent is publicly censured.