Let's review whether that was true.
Here are some of the recommendations of the Commission, with comments:
Who would argue?
Yet, Cornelia Cahill, wife of Chief Judge of New York State Court of Claim Richard Sise, was not disbarred by Timothy O'Sullivan's colleagues, when she, and 100 more attorneys, were caught stealing from state benefits and pension system, pretending they are employees of the school system when they were not, doing it for YEARS AND DECADES, and Timothy O'Sullivan does not seem to raise any riots.
Cornelia Cahill, instead of being disbarred, was accepted AS A LAW PARTNER in the law firm of one of members of the disciplinary committees who was charged with a duty to investigate and prosecute her! That's one way to give a judge a favor and promote one's business, isn't it - to save his wife from disbarment?
Steven Baum whose law firm was behind the "robosigning" scandal in judicial foreclosures, against whom the feds were making probes as to his "faulty filings" in foreclosure cases, who, thus, was responsible for helping steal thousands of homes from New Yorkers, was not disbarred or publicly disciplined, and I did not see any statements by Timothy O'Sullivan concerned about that state of events, of Steven Baum's dishonesty as an attorney.
The list goes on and on.
Timothy O'Sullivan doesn't stir.
Timothy O'Sullivan boldly claims that attorneys who steal must be referred for prosecution to criminal prosecutors, as part of a uniform policy.
Great! Cornelia Cahill and Steven Baum, too? Or just solo and small firm independent criminal defense and civil rights attorneys?
One of the witnesses who testified before the Commission in New York City, was not at all confident that any new rules or policies will be followed though:
You know what Timothy O'Sullivan REALLY concerned about?
To make "dispositions" in attorney disciplinary proceedings FASTER. That means, to afford an attorney even less time than he/she currently has to answer the complaint - now it is even less than allowed for a civil lawsuit, which is already an equal protection problem.
And what speedy dispositions Timothy O'Sullivan may be seeking from courts and attorney disciplinary committees? Of course, the GUILTY dispositions, because he will not get any money out of not guilty dispositions.
So, Timothy O'Sullivan is one complainant who attempts to influence speed - and fairness - of attorney disciplinary proceedings to do his shakeout job faster. Great for uniformity, great for efficiency, not great for fairness.
So, to sum up on the issue of dismissing complaints, the following rule emerges:
- when a lay consumer files a complaint, it is usually dismissed without an explanation;
- if a judge imposes a sanction, often arbitrary, and often because the judge is pissed off because the judge's own misconduct is challenged on a motion to recuse, that complaint, made by Timothy O'Sullivan, is given a priority and is ALWAYS investigated and prosecuted - even when sanctions are imposed NOT for dishonest behavior of an attorney, which is the ONLY basis of sanctions for which Timothy O'Sullivan can collect, because the goals for which his Fund was created was to protect legal consumes from DISHONEST behavior of attorneys
- conviction for a felony;
- contempt of court order of child support
- proposed to invent laws that already exist:
- for incompetents and
- for criminal prosecutions of theft;
- proposed rules that did not have to be proposed because
- courts already have authority of rule-making and can do it without reports or recommendations, and because
- the same courts and committees are opposing the same issues at the very same time in multiple lawsuits in federal court - appears frivolous to me
- engaged in relentless efforts to further defy antitrust law and to allow further selective enforcement of attorney discipline:
- by trying to quash the "revolutionary" undertakings in the First Department, and
- by trying to introduce "oral" discipline against attorneys, thus avoiding public scrutiny of selective enforcement and further selective enforcement by being able to claim aggravating circumstances against targeted attorneys backed up by perjured affidavits only, no records of admonishment proceedings