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

attorneypleawillfelonyvisanaturalizationrespondentpiracy
attorneypleawillfelonyvisanaturalizationrespondentpiracy

Related Cases

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Singh v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Ruiz-Lopez, Matter of
View Case »
Abghari v. Gonzales
View Case »
Beck v. Mukasey
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Salberg, In re

Facts

Respondent, Libby D. Salberg, was admitted to practice law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on September 12, 1979. On January 24, 2000, respondent pleaded guilty to all three counts of an information charging her with conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, immigration fraud, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. The charges arose from her willful and knowing presentation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service of more than 25 visa applications that contained false statements of material facts.

Respondent, Libby D. Salberg, was admitted to practice law in the State of New York by the Second Judicial Department on September 12, 1979, as Libby Dorothy Salberg. At all times relevant to the instant proceeding, she maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department. On January 24, 2000, respondent pleaded guilty to all three counts of an information charging her with conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, in violation of 18 USC 371; immigration fraud, in violation of 18 USC 1546; and conspiracy to obstruct justice, also in violation of 18 USC 371. The charges in the information arose out of, inter alia, respondent's willful and knowing presentation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service of more than 25 visa applications that contained false statements of material facts.

Issue

Whether the attorney's felony convictions warranted automatic disbarment under N.Y. Jud. Law 90(4)(a).

Whether the attorney's felony convictions warranted automatic disbarment under N.Y. Jud. Law 90(4)(a).

Rule

The federal charge of immigration fraud, in violation of 18 USC 1546, is substantially similar to the New York felony of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree under N.Y. Penal Law 175.35, which subjects the attorney to automatic disbarment.

Inasmuch as the Federal charge of immigration fraud, in violation of 18 USC 1546, is substantially similar to the New York felony of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree under New York Penal Law 175.35, the conviction subjects respondent to automatic disbarment (Judiciary Law 90 [4] [a]).

Analysis

The court held that since the federal charge of immigration fraud was substantially similar to the New York felony, the attorney's conviction subjected her to automatic disbarment. The court noted that the attorney ceased to be an attorney upon her felony conviction, thus justifying the petition to strike her name from the roll of attorneys.

Accordingly, since respondent ceased to be an attorney upon her felony conviction, the petition to strike her name from the roll of attorneys should be granted.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition and struck the attorney's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York.

Petition granted and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, as indicated.

Who won?

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department of New York prevailed as the court granted their petition to disbar the attorney based on her felony convictions.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order striking respondent's name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law 90 (4) (b), on the ground that respondent has been disbarred upon her conviction of a felony as defined by Judiciary Law 90 (4) (e). Respondent does not oppose the application.

You must be