HEADNOTES
Attorney and Client
- Reinstatement
Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial
Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for
the Third Judicial Department.
Seog Tae Shim, Gyeonggi-do, Korea, respondent
pro se.
Motion by respondent for an order reinstating them to the practice of law following
their suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law
§ 468-a, 172 AD3d 1706, 1752 [3d Dept 2019]; see Rules
for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div,
3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).
Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibits sworn to
August 11, 2025, the September 16, 2025 responsive correspondence from the Attorney
Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear
and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has complied with the order of suspension
and the rules of this Court,[FN*] (2) respondent has the requisite
character and fitness to practice law, and (3) it would be in the public interest to reinstate
respondent to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22
NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), we grant their application. Notwithstanding their
satisfaction of the substantive requirements for reinstatement, we direct respondent to (1)
demonstrate their completion of six continuing legal education credits in the areas of
Skills and/or Law Practice Management (see Rules of App Div, All Depts [22
NYCRR] § 1500.2 [d], [e]) that specifically relate to the practice of law in
New York (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16
[c] [5] [i]); and (2) provide proof of their compliance with this condition to both this
Court and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department within
60 days of this Court's order. Accordingly, it is ordered that respondent's motion for
reinstatement is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is reinstated as an
attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately, subject to the conditions set forth
in this decision.
Garry, P.J., Aarons, Lynch, Powers and Mackey, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
Footnote *:While respondent
self-certified as being exempt from the mandatory continuing legal education
requirements attendant to their biennial registration obligations, we again remind the Bar
that the continuing legal education requirement contained within Rules of the Appellate
Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5) is "separate and
distinct" from the continuing legal education requirements attendant to an attorney's
biennial registration (Matter of
Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Pretorius], 218 AD3d
954, 956 [3d Dept 2023]).