Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionattorneynegligenceappealmotion
jurisdictionattorney

Related Cases

Whiting Corp. v. White Machinery Corp., 567 F.2d 713
View Case »
National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc., 676 Fed.Appx. 967
View Case »
Culebras Enterprises Corp. v. Rivera-Rios, 846 F.2d 94, 56 USLW 2650
View Case »
Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5507, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6551, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7523, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931
View Case »
In re Marriage of Olson, 14 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 480
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Fengling Liu, 109 A.D.3d 284, 969 N.Y.S.2d 57, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 05295

Facts

Fengling Liu, an immigration attorney admitted to practice in New York, was publicly reprimanded by the Second Circuit for various forms of misconduct, including failing to keep clients informed, neglecting cases, and improperly supervising an associate. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee sought reciprocal discipline, leading to a review of Liu's actions, which included filing appeals in the wrong venue and failing to follow up on motions to withdraw as counsel. Liu acknowledged her negligence but denied any intentional misconduct.

Fengling Liu, an immigration attorney admitted to practice in New York, was publicly reprimanded by the Second Circuit for various forms of misconduct, including failing to keep clients informed, neglecting cases, and improperly supervising an associate.

Issue

Whether the appropriate reciprocal discipline for Fengling Liu, following her public reprimand by the Second Circuit, should be a public censure.

Whether the appropriate reciprocal discipline for Fengling Liu, following her public reprimand by the Second Circuit, should be a public censure.

Rule

The court applied the principle that reciprocal discipline is warranted when an attorney has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, unless certain defenses are established.

The court applied the principle that reciprocal discipline is warranted when an attorney has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, unless certain defenses are established.

Analysis

The court reviewed the findings of the Second Circuit and the Committee on Admissions and Grievances, which concluded that Liu's misconduct was serious enough to warrant a public censure. The court found that Liu's actions demonstrated a pattern of negligence and a failure to fulfill her responsibilities as an attorney, despite her claims of misunderstanding procedural rules. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining professional standards and protecting the integrity of the legal profession.

The court reviewed the findings of the Second Circuit and the Committee on Admissions and Grievances, which concluded that Liu's misconduct was serious enough to warrant a public censure.

Conclusion

The court held that a public censure was appropriate for Liu's misconduct, affirming the recommendation of the Committee on Admissions and Grievances.

The court held that a public censure was appropriate for Liu's misconduct, affirming the recommendation of the Committee on Admissions and Grievances.

Who won?

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee prevailed in the case, as the court agreed with their recommendation for a public censure based on Liu's serious misconduct.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee prevailed in the case, as the court agreed with their recommendation for a public censure based on Liu's serious misconduct.

You must be