| Matter of Russell-Ward |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 08286 [179 AD3d 11] |
| November 14, 2019 |
| Per Curiam |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, January 15, 2020 |
| In the Matter of Mychel K. Russell-Ward (Admitted as Mychel Kema Russell-Ward), an Attorney, Respondent. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner. |
First Department, November 14, 2019
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York City (Naomi F. Goldstein of counsel), for petitioner.
Mychel K. Russell-Ward, respondent pro se.
Respondent Mychel K. Russell-Ward was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York{**179 AD3d at 13} by the First Judicial Department on June 29, 2009, under the name Mychel Kema Russell-Ward. Although respondent's last known business address listed with the Office of Court Administration is in Maryland, this Court has jurisdiction based on her admission by this Court.
The Attorney Grievance Committee seeks an order pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9 (a) (3), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law based on her willful refusal to comply with lawful demands of the Court or Committee in the Committee's investigation into allegations of professional misconduct which immediately threatens the public interest. The Committee asserts that respondent was given ample opportunity to cooperate with its investigation, noting that over the course of eight months the Committee sent respondent five letters directing her to submit an answer to allegations in the complaint specifically explaining certain disturbing emails to the New York City Bar Association, but respondent disregarded those repeated requests.
Respondent's purported "answer" is not only untimely, but fails to adequately explain the content of the emails she sent to the City Bar, and therefore, an immediate suspension is warranted (see Matter of Miller, 170 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2019]; Matter of Thomas, 155 AD3d 61 [1st Dept 2017]).
Accordingly, the motion is granted to the extent that it seeks an interim suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (a) (3), effective immediately, without prejudice to respondent seeking to convert this to a medical suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.14 (b), if she is so advised.
Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli and Singh, JJ., concur.
The motion is granted to the extent that respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (a) (3), effective the date hereof, without prejudice to respondent seeking to convert this to a medical suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.14 (b), if she is so advised.