| Matter of Lovejoy |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 04105 [197 AD3d 43] |
| June 29, 2021 |
| Per Curiam |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, September 1, 2021 |
| In the Matter of Frederick A. Lovejoy, an Attorney, Respondent. Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner. |
First Department, June 29, 2021
Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York City (Kevin M. Doyle of counsel), for petitioner.
Frederick A. Lovejoy, respondent pro se.
Respondent Frederick A. Lovejoy was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on February 6, 1984. He maintains a registered address in New Hampshire, where he resides.
On December 14, 2018, the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee issued a public reprimand to respondent based on his failure to satisfy a judgment entered against his law firm of which he was the sole principal and his dilatory and harassing conduct in litigation concerning same.
The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now seeks an order, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (2), Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13, and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, finding that respondent has been disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction and imposing a public censure, or, in the alternative, sanctioning respondent as this Court deems appropriate.
None of the enumerated defenses to reciprocal discipline are available to respondent. Respondent received notice of the allegations against him and challenged them; he appeared and testified before the reviewing committee; he was advised of his right to seek review of the reviewing committee's adverse decision but elected not to do so; the reviewing committee's misconduct findings are sufficiently supported by the record; and the misconduct for which respondent was disciplined would constitute misconduct in violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 3.4 (c) and 4.4 (a).
Public censure is an appropriate sanction as it is commensurate with the discipline imposed by Connecticut and is in accord with New York precedent involving comparable misconduct (see e.g. Matter of Gluck, 153 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2017]).
Accordingly, the AGC's motion should be granted and respondent is censured.
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Webber, Mazzarelli, Moulton and Mendez, JJ., concur.
It is ordered that the Committee's motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (2) and Rules for Attorney {**197 AD3d at 45}Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 is granted and respondent is publicly censured.