Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department

M103806

E/ct

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

REINALDO E. RIVERA

PETER B. SKELOS

RUTH C. BALKIN, JJ.

2010-01046 In the Matter of Wynman Chang, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, petitioner; Wynman Chang, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2790947)

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District for an order: (1) suspending the respondent from the practice of law on an interim basis, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), upon a finding that he is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest in that he has failed to comply with the lawful demands of the Grievance Committee in connection with its investigation; (2) authorizing the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on a petition dated January 8, 2010; (3) directing the respondent to submit an answer; and (4) appointing a Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the Bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on April 2, 1997.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion and no papers having been submitted in opposition or in relation thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.4(l)(1)(i) and (iii), the respondent, Wynman Chang, is immediately suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York, pending further order of the court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Wynman Chang, shall promptly comply with this court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this court, the respondent, Wynman Chang, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District is hereby authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding in this court against Wynman Chang, based on the petition dated January 8, 2010; and it is further,

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee shall serve the petition upon the Special Referee and file the original petition in the office of the Clerk of this court within 20 days after receipt of a copy of this order; and it is further,

ORDERED that Gary L. Casella, Chief Counsel, Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, 399 Knollwood Road, Suite 200, White Plains, N.Y. 10603, is hereby appointed as attorney for the petitioner in such proceeding; and it is further,

ORDERED that within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this order, the respondent, Wynman Chang, shall serve an answer upon the petitioner and the Special Referee, and shall file the original answer with this court; and it is further,

ORDERED that the issues raised by the petition and any answer thereto are referred to the Honorable John M. Perone, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, 210 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, N.Y. 10538, together with his finding on the issues, and to submit a report within 60 days after the conclusion of the hearing or the submission of post-hearing memoranda; and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Wynman Chang, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f).

We find, prima facie, that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest based upon his failure to cooperate with an investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District and uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.

The Grievance Committee initiated a sua sponte complaint against the respondent based on records of the Office of Court Administration (hereinafter OCA) which indicated that the respondent had failed to re-register as an attorney for the previous and current registration periods. The respondent failed to pay the biennial registration fee for the 2005-2006 period and has failed to pay for subsequent periods as required.

By letter dated May 22, 2008, the Grievance Committee sent the sua sponte complaint to the respondent with a request that he submit an answer within 10 days and advised him that an unexcused failure to reply constitutes professional misconduct independent of the merits. The Grievance Committee sent the letter to the respondent's Georgia address which was on file with OCA. The respondent failed to reply.

On July 16, 2008, Grievance Counsel left a message on the respondent's voice mail requesting that he submit an answer, and address his failure to update his registration. The respondent failed to reply. The Grievance Committee sent the respondent a follow-up letter dated July 18, 2008 advising him that failure to reply would result in disciplinary action. The respondent still failed to reply.

The Grievance Committee sent the respondent, via regular and certified mail, another follow-up letter dated September 4, 2008. Although the letter sent via regular mail was not returned by the Post Office, the certified letter was returned unclaimed after three delivery attempts. The respondent failed to reply.

Grievance Counsel telephoned the respondent on September 26, 2008. The respondent revealed that he practices in Georgia and was waiting to obtain money to pay his New York registration fees. By letter dated October 20, 2008, the Grievance Committee outlined for the respondent his available options concerning registration, including retirement and voluntary resignation. The respondent was directed to submit a response by November 3, 2008. He still failed to comply.

By letter dated November 17, 2008, the Grievance Committee directed the respondent to submit an answer by December 1, 2008, and proof of his updated registration by January 5, 2009. The Grievance Committee warned the respondent that his failure to respond would necessitate a motion for his interim suspension and eventuate in a published order. The respondent still failed to comply.

Notwithstanding a voice message left on February 20, 2009, follow-up letters on April 21, 2009, May 19, 2009, and September 21, 2009 and a final effort to avoid a disciplinary proceeding by letter dated October 26, 2009, the respondent failed to reply. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee has submitted a motion for the respondent's immediate suspension on the grounds of failure to cooperate and uncontroverted evidence.

The respondent was personally served with the Grievance Committee's order to show cause in Georgia on February 23, 2010. He has, to date, failed to submit a reply or to request additional time in which to do so.

Based on the foregoing, the Grievance Committee's motion is granted without opposition, the respondent is suspended on the ground that he constitutes an immediate threat to the public by virtue of his persistent pattern of non-compliance and other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct, the Grievance Committee is authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on the petition dated January 8, 2010, and the issues raised are referred to a Special Referee to hear and report.

PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and BALKIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court