New York: Attorney’s Name Stricken from the Roll of Attorneys Admitted to Practice Before the Court

In In re Saghir, 632 F. Supp 2d 328, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63370 (S.D.N.Y., 2009), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an interim order of suspension, and due to further allegations ordered to have the name of the attorney stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Court.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed the attorney had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1–102(A)(5) “by failing to submit answers to inquiries concerning the complaints filed against him and failing to provide materials pursuant to subpoena, respondent ‘thwarted the Committee’s investigation…and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of DR 1–102(A)(5)’” See In re Deluca, 230 A.D.2d 234, 235, 655 N.Y. S.2d 516, 517 (1st Dep’t 1997)
The attorney also failed to cooperate in violation of 22 NYCRR 603.15(e), by “failing to comply with subpoena records without any justification, asserted his privilege against self incrimination at his disposition, and was deemed to have ‘willful[ly] and deliberate[ly]’ failed to cooperate.” See In re Pikna, 101 A.D.2d 588, 589, 476 N.Y.S.2d 140, 141 (1st Dep’t 1984)
The Court wrote in the Interim Suspension, “[S]aghir not only has demonstrated an inability to conform to the rules and orders of this Court, but also has failed to take any steps to ameliorate the prejudice to her clients and the public after her defaults were brought to her attention.”
This case teaches the importance of an attorney to conform and abide by the rules and orders of the Court. The case also teaches when there is a lack of competence in the attorney, that lacking leads to a negligent representation of the client and the attorney as seen by the Court.