Respondent Matthew Benjamin Waller was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on October 31, 2005. Respondent maintains a registered business address in the First Judicial Department.

In February 2025, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) served respondent with a notice and petition of charges (two charges) alleging professional misconduct stemming from his improper notarization practices.

The parties now jointly move under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8 (a) (5) for discipline by consent and ask this Court to publicly censure respondent.

The motion is supported by a joint affirmation containing a statement of facts, conditional admissions of professional misconduct, factors in mitigation, and agreed upon discipline. It is also supported by respondent's affidavit acknowledging his admission to the stipulated facts, his consent to the agreed upon discipline, which he has freely and voluntarily given, and his full awareness of the consequences of such consent (22 NYCRR 1240.8 [a] [5] [i], [iii]).

The parties stipulated to the following relevant facts:

• Between March 2020 and June 2022, respondent, who is 45 years old, represented various clients, who had been incarcerated at Rikers Island, in lawsuits against the City of New York. During{**239 AD3d at 19} the aforementioned period, respondent offered over 200 times to complete settlement paperwork on his clients' behalf if they indicated they wished to accept the settlement. This included signing his clients' names on general releases, affidavits of status of liens, and then notarizing those signatures as if the clients had signed them.

• In addition, on two occasions, two clients signed the settlement paperwork outside of respondent's presence and respondent notarized the clients' signatures later, even though the notary jurat stated that it was "sworn to before [respondent]."

• Respondent now acknowledges that the conduct described above was wrong, he regrets his misconduct, and has not engaged in such misconduct since June 2022, prior to the AGC commencing its investigation.

Respondent admits that his actions, as set forth above, violated the two charges alleged in the petition of charges:

• By signing more than 200 documents on his clients' behalf and then notarizing those documents, respondent engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, was prejudicial to the administration [*2]of justice, and adversely reflected upon his fitness as a lawyer in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 8.4 (c), (d), and (h).

• By notarizing two documents that his clients signed outside of his presence, respondent engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, was prejudicial to the administration of justice, and adversely reflected upon his fitness as a lawyer in violation of rules 8.4 (c), (d), and (h).

The parties have stipulated that "[t]here are no aggravating factors present in this case."

The parties have also stipulated to the following mitigation:

• Respondent has no disciplinary history; he fully cooperated with the AGC's investigation from its inception; and respondent acknowledged his misconduct during his October 29, 2024 examination under oath before the AGC and expressed remorse for it. Significantly, respondent freely{**239 AD3d at 20} admitted to the AGC that he signed his clients' signatures over 200 times. If not for this admission, the AGC would have had no practical way to ascertain how many times he did so. Therefore, respondent should be credited for his honesty and cooperation with the AGC's investigation.

• There is no evidence that respondent had any venal intent in signing his clients' signatures. Indeed, it appears that he had permission from his clients to do so; and this practice was not motivated by greed or larcenous intent, but by expediency and a fear of COVID exposure.

• Respondent represents incarcerated individuals, a vulnerable and underserved community in the legal process; and his nine references (five from attorneys) demonstrate his good character.

The parties agree that a public censure is the appropriate sanction herein. They argue "that when considering the totality of the circumstances, including respondent's non-venal intent, the Court's precedent, and the significant mitigating factors present, respondent should receive a public censure."

They cite Matter of Land (299 AD2d 83 [1st Dept 2002]), in which a censure was imposed for, inter alia, signing nine clients' names to affidavits with their permission and then notarizing the signatures as if the affidavits had actually been signed and sworn to before Land. A tenth affidavit was signed by the affiant and faxed to Land who then notarized the affidavit without the affiant's presence (see also Matter of Essien, 77 AD3d 237 [1st Dept 2010]; Matter of Vignola, 218 AD2d 310 [1st Dept 1996]).

Accordingly, in light of respondent's nonvenal misconduct, the lack of aggravation, the mitigating factors presented, and the relevant case law, with which the requested sanction is in general accord, the parties' joint motion should be granted, public censure imposed, and the petition of charges denied as moot.

Renwick, P.J., Moulton, González, O'Neill Levy and Michael, JJ., concur.

Wherefore, it is ordered that the parties' joint motion for discipline by consent pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.8 (a) (5), is granted, respondent [*3]Matthew Benjamin Waller is publicly censured, and the petition of charges denied as moot.