Lippman's clumsy attempts to address fundamental unconstitutionality of New York UPL statutes and attorney licensing in his "new" attorney disciplinary rules

As I stated in my previous blogs yesterday and today, New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, on the eve of his mandatory retirement that will happen tomorrow, continues to fight several civil rights lawsuits, one of them is an appeal and a motion to vacate in Neroni v Zayas, a civil rights lawsuit that I started on behalf of my husband and that is challenging several issues of constitutionality of attorney disciplinary system in New York.

As part of the lawsuit, Lippman fights, among other issues, these two:

1) an equal protection challenge requesting to declare that attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York are administrative and not judicial in nature and that New York violates attorneys' equal protection of laws by not providing to them ANY right of judicial review of those administrative proceedings, such as the State of New York provides to holders of other occupational licenses;

2) a challenge to New York criminal unauthorized practice of law (UPL) statutes and attorney regulation scheme as a whole on the basis of the state's failure to provide a clear definition as to what the practice of law is - essentially, the claim is that, if the State of New York does not know what the heck the practice of law is, it cannot regulate the practice of law or impose criminal liability for unauthorized practice of law.  

In fact, not only New York, but other states, too, struggle with definition of what the practice of law is, and decide what it is on an "ad hoc" (case-by-case) basis, with notice to criminal defendants provided backwards by the court instead of forwards by the legislature through a statute.  

It is obvious that such UPL statutes and attorney regulation of what is not defined are a violation of ex post facto laws prohibited by the U.S. Constitution that every judge and every lawyer is sworn to uphold.

You can read an interesting piece on the manipulation of UPL laws in different states here.

Lippman reflected his strife in Neroni v Zayas in his new attorney disciplinary rules as to these two issues in the following way:

1) he claimed (without authority, since such authority belongs to the Legislature and not to the Chief Judge) that attorney disciplinary proceedings are "special proceedings" (meaning special COURT proceedings) within the meaning of Article 4 of the CPLR - but then did not allow CPLR to apply to disclosure in such proceedings, as it applies to all other "special court proceedings", and introduced a new pleading for the goverment, a "reply";

 

Note Lippman's creativity in inventing a "reply".

For example, a Family Court case is a "special proceeding" within the meaning of CPLR Article 4.  

No "replies" are allowed in such proceedings to be filed by the government, nor in any other "special court proceedings" filed against the government.

A "reply" is allowed under the CPLR in MOTION practice, not in initiating pleadings for a case.

Lippman should not have paraded his incompetence as part of new attorney disciplinary rules, although he, of course, can claim incompetence as of his legacy, that would be true.

The usual three sets of initiating pleadings in court proceedings in New York (and not in special proceedings!) are:

1.  Plaintiff's complaint;
2. Defendant's answer AND COUNTERCLAIM if the Defendant so desires;
3. the Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's counterclaim

In attorney disciplinary proceedings that are commenced by the arm of a licensing agency (even if the licensing agency is a court, it still discharges executive functions of a licensing agency, and therefore, attorney disciplinary proceedings are administrative and not judicial in nature) against an attorney, there is no right of a counterclaim, and thus, there should be no right for a reply.

Yet, Lippman invented such a right for disciplinary prosecutors, while all the way claiming that such proceedings are somehow under Article 4 of the CPLR.  You cannot find anything like that in Article 4 of the CPLR.

2)  As to UPL prohibitions, Lippman included into the new rules this fantastic text:

 

Yes, the practice of law is regulated in New York not by one statute, but by four criminal statutes, none of which provides a definition of what the practice of law, legal services or business of a lawyer is.

Here they are:

Judiciary Law 478 - prohibition of the practice of law without registraton and licensing; registration and licensing procedure are defined in the statute, practice of law or what constitutes "legal services" are not defined;

Judiciary Law 479 - criminal prohibition on solicitation of business for a lawyer; what constitutes that business and what constitutes legal services or the practice of law, is not defined

Judiciary Law 484 - prohibition for natural persons to practice law other than on their own behalf;  practice of law or legal services are not defined either;

Judiciary Law 486 - prohibition of "acts forbidden by this article" without defining what the practice of law, legal services, or doing business as a lawyer is

 

So, the new rules prohibit to disbarred and suspended attorneys this quadruple legislative blunder giving people absolutely no notice of prohibited conduct.

The practice of law in New York, as well as unauthorized practice of law is like obscenity - "you know it when you see it".

That is not how criminal statutes, and regulatory scheme based on such statutes, are supposed to operate, that much must be known even to 1st year law students.

So, Lippman leaves a lasting evidence of incompetence, self-service and corruption.   People of the State of New York could expect nothing else from Lippman. 

Yet, the two elephants in the room, issues of fundamental unconstitutionality of New York UPL statutes and attorney licensing system, that Lippman tried to so clumsily address in the "new" attorney disciplinary rules, remain open.

New York state joins other states in defiance of federal antitrust laws regarding attorney regulation

The "Irreverent Lawyer" blog recently commented on the state bars' "underwhelmed" reaction to the antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that affects attorney regulation.

What the blog does not say though is that the so-called "underwhelmed" reaction of the states to the antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is in fact ongoing defiance of the states in asserting, under the guise of protecting the public, that regulation of the legal profession can be done only by the legal profession itself, which is what the U.S. Supreme Court said is in violation of the Sherman Act without immunity.

That means, attorney regulations in all states that did not change their regulatory schemes from the disciplinary boards/ committees run by market participants (attorneys) without active state supervision by a NEUTRAL state body (go find it for attorneys), are in violation of federal antitrust laws (laws that, by the way, have both civil provision with a right of a private cause of action with treble damages, and a criminal component).

Anyway, the blog is a piece worth reading, together with the interlinked documents.

Especially in New York, where Chief Judge Lippman, on the steps of retirement, announced "new" attorney disciplinary rules that, while rearranging the chairs on Titanic's deck some more, violate antitrust laws as much as the previous rules did.

Jonathan Lippman's l"egacy of social justice" - NYS Associations of Court officers sues Lippman for violation of their constitutional rights

I wrote in my previous blog that I will cover lawsuits against Jonathan Lippman as part of his "legacy".

Here is the list of lawsuits available on Pacer.gov against Jonathan Lippman.

Lawsuits against Lippman at trial level (Lippman is listed as "dft" - Defendant or "res", Respondent):

 Lawsuits at appellate level:

A missing date in the "Date Closed" column indicate a pending lawsuit or appeal.

There are two pending appeals and 5 pending lawsuits, according to this table.

The reporting by Pacer might not correctly reflect the true status of the cases.

For example, when a Rule 60 motion to vacate is filed based on new evidence, the case is still reported as "closed", even though litigation continues.

Therefore, there is no way, without going into all of docket reports of these cases (and paying for it, which I cannot afford), to learn whether motions to vacate based on new evidence have been filed in any lawsuits against Lippman claimed as "closed" on Pacer.

Here are some statements from the lawsuit New York State Court Officers Association v Hite, Case No. 1:12-cv-532 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Lippman is one of Co-Defendants in that ongoing lawsuit.

  

That's right, while advocating for 10 more years of his own "service" on the Court of Appeals, and even trying to have the New York State Constitution amended to give him those 10 more years of enhanced pay, while advocating for pay raises of the already inflated judicial salaries during ongoing budgetary crises and "justice gap" crisis when majority of New Yorkers cannot afford an attorney, Lippman at the same time cut benefits of his own "lesser", non-judiical employees - and got sued for that. 

The lawsuit is still pending while Lippman is leaving his office.

I do not see mainstream media commenting on that lawsuit as part of Lippman's "legacy" at the time he leaves his office.

As I mentioned above, there are more lawsuits pending against Lippman and many more dismissed on his requests that they are "meritless" (like our Neroni v Zayas from which he plagiarized his ideas for new attorney rules) or on the basis of "sovereign immunity" that New York waived in 1929 through Court of Claims act, or based on "absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts" that New York waived by enacting Judiciary Law 14 that strips jurisdiction from a judge with personal interest in a case (and malice and corruption is the ultimate personal interests).

I will try to cover some of the other lawsuits against Jonathan Lippman, too. 

Stay tuned.

Plagiarism, frivolous conduct and catering for himself and his friends as Jonathan Lippman's legacy of "social justice" and the timid mainstream media

Recently, I ran a blog about a bad recent case of judicial corruption in Florida.

As part of that blog I provided a link to a YouTube video showing how a protestor was videotaping how reporters from mainstream media were walking towards the courthouse to attend a conference held by prosecutors (after, as a related court order said, parking in a secure parking lot provided by the prosecution) and completely ignored pleas by the reporter who asserted he was a 15-year fraud investigator, to look at the evidence he had of judicial corruption in that same courthouse.

One of the reporters told him to "talk to her manager about it".

Apparently, managers in the "free" mainstream media define what KIND of news is reportable and what kind is not.

Here is also a link to a 2009 law review written by a then law student who actually did a survey and put together an "economic model" of judicial corruption in the United States.  While I disagree with the author of the note on many points he is making (and will run a separate blog analyzing that particle law review article), he did point out that judicial corruption is a big problem in the United States, with 2% of the U.S. population reporting that they bribed judges only in one year, 2011, and explained some mechanisms of how judicial corruption works and what motivates it.

One of the big motivators, as reported in the law review, is unaccountability and failiure of attorneys who know about corruption to report it.  

The author of the law review, Stratos Pahis, asserted that it is more likely that corruption is reported in a criminal case when a criminal defendant who bribed the judge did not get what he expected from the judge, than when a bribe is made in a civil proceeding.  Also, the law review article noted that the higher the "honor" and "prestige" of judicial office (appellate judge vs trial judge, federal judge vs state judge), the higher is the price-tag of the bribe - and that is according to review of bribes of judges who were already caught and prosecuted for bribes, a very rare occurrence.

Now, New York Times claimed yesterday that Lippman leaves his office with a "legacy of reforms inspired for social justice".

This statement is a slap in the face of many people, and a slap in my face, personally. 

I stand as one of the attorneys that New York State "incapacitated" by suspending my law license BECAUSE I reported and criticized judicial corruption.  My law license was suspended BECAUSE I represented my clients in accordance with my oath of office and BECAUSE I made motions to recuse a corrupt judge (who ran from the bench 4 years after imposing sanctions upon me anyway, after NYS Comptroller found improprieties in the office he represented as an attorney going back 30 years, all those years when he was representing Delaware County and its Social Services).

I stand as an author of many points proclaimed by Lippman in his "reforms" that Lippman plagiariarized from my court pleadings, while at the same time having those civil rights lawsuits dismissed, me and my husband on whose behalf I filed those lawsuits, punished for "frivolous conduct".

In fact, Lippman continues to fight the lawsuit from which he plagiarized his "attorney discipline reform", at the appellate level.  Many of the same topics that he asserts in his newly-proclaimed attorney disciplinary rules were asserted in the lawsuit Neroni v Zayas, 3:13-cv-127 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in 2013.  

Lippman fought tooth and claw to have the lawsuit dismissed, succeeded, while at the same time "creating" a Commission discussing the very same issues as reform issues.  

The Commission issued a final report on September 24, 2015, one day after my husband filed his appellant's brief appealing the dismissal of Neroni v Zayas, and while Lippman, 3rd Department Chief Judge Peters, Chief Attorney for 3rd Department Disciplinary Committee Duffy and New York State Attorney General Schneiderman continued to fight tooth and claw in appellate court what was already proclaimed by the Commission as meritorious issues for the needed social justice reforms.

Then, Lippman fought tooth and claw opposing acceptance of the brief by the federal appellate court, claiming it is too long because it addressed "incoherent" and "rambling" complaint in the court below (the complaint was coherent enough for Lippman to plagiarizing half of it for his various "reforms").  

In fact, the brief was long because: 

(1) the complaint was long, having to point out many unconstitutional issues in New York attorney disciplinary system (many of them Lippman left intact in the new rules, I will run a separate blog on that);  

(2) the dismissal was in two stages and by two different orders, requiring to address issues in both orders and because 

(3) Mr. Neroni in his pro se brief had to address Lippman's conduct in creation the Commission consisting of Lippman's co-defendants in Neroni v Zayas who were supposed to regurgitate his ideas from the lawsuit they asked the court to dismiss as their own ideas and as "reforms" for "social justice".

Then, Lippman's court system stripped me of my state law license right before my deadline to file a motion for sanctions in federal court against Lippman for frivolous conduct in Neroni v Zayas on state and federal level (nice when you as a litigant has such a control over your opponent's attorney, isn't it?), and federal court automatically stripped me of my federal law license based on Lippman's court system stripping of my state law license.

Then, on December 18, 2015, Lippman's counsel (NYS Assistant Attorney General Andrew Ayers) authored an Appellee brief continuing to claim that issues raised in Neroni v Zayas are properly dismissed as having "no merit".

Then, on December 29, 2015, while continuing to fight Neroni v Zayas appeal, Lippman issued new attorney disciplinary rules that reflected some of the same issues that Neroni v Zayas raised and announced a press-release assigning credit to everyone by Mr. Neroni or me as authors of many ideas in those new rules.  Lippman did not notify the federal appellate court of the issuance of his rules or of the fact that his rules closely tracked Neroni v Zayas, dismissed at Lippman's request.

By the way, Lippman's court system is still stalling my FOIL request for affidavits (public comment), public records submitted to the NYS Commission for Statewide Attorney Discipline that were used by the Commission as a basis of its final report.

It is interesting to mention that Lippman also plagiarized my ideas in the pleadings in Mr. Neroni's other lawsuit, Neroni v Becker, filed in the summer of 2012, in his 2013 "Cameras in the courtroom" speech.

There, I, on behalf of Mr. Neroni, contested constitutionality of criminal prohibition on videotaping of open court proceedings as a violation of litigants' due process of law.

Mr. Neroni and I got slapped with a dismissal of Neroni v Becker lawsuit and with sanctions for $6,995 for that lawsuit.

Lippman got credit for the idea and for his "legacy of promoting social justice".

Mr. Neroni had his lawsuit in Neroni v Zayas dismissed, I had my law license revoked in state and federal courts, Mr. Neroni was slapped with an anti-filing injunction of ALL of his civil rights lawsuits for the future unless he meets impossible conditions of a biased court, specifically for Neroni v Becker and Neroni v Zayas, and Lippman got credit for our ideas from those lawsuits, as for "legacy of promoting social justice".

In Neroni v Zayas, Mr. Neroni raised issues that Lippman's court system prosecutes suspended and disbarred attorneys for unauthorized practice of law for the same conduct which is allowed to unlicensed individual, as an equal protection challenge.

The 2nd Department created a precedent in June of 2015 punishing an attorney with denial of reinstatement because he engaged in paralegal and expert services, and Mr. Neroni raised it in his Neroni v Zayas Rule 60 motion to vacate at the trial level and on appeal.  Lippman continues to fight these arguments on both levels.

Moreover,  Lippman had Neroni v Zayas dismissed as "meritless", and then instituted a program "Legal Hand" based on a "public-private" partnership that received an "anonymous" donation of one million dollars from a "private benefactor" (Lippman's court system stalls my FOIL request on the identity of the benefactor and financial documents pertaining to the partnership), and practically allows and encourages unauthorized practice of law by unlicensed volunteers, something that a suspended or disbarred attorney would not be allowed to do.

In Neroni v Zayas, Mr. Neroni raised issues that disparity in rules between Appellate Divisions deprive disciplined attorneys, himself included, of equal protection of laws.  Lippman had his lawsuit dismissed as meritless and then adopted that idea in the new rules and got credit for the idea and for the "legacy of social justice".

Lippman's "legacy" is also:

1.  to pitch and cast a deciding vote for his friend Sheldon Silver in a lawsuit as soon as he became Chief Justice, 
2. to stall publishing Sheldon Silver's status as an attorney disbarred-by-operation-of-law after his recent conviction for federal crimes, 
3. to try, with the help of his now-convicted childhood friend Sheldon Silver, to add 10 years to his own "service" as the Chief Judge through (failed) attempts to amend the NYS Constitution (quoting a "shortage" of judges no less, in a State with nearly 400,000 lawyers as a judicial pool to draw from), and
4. to raise judicial salaries to $203,000 when the average income of a New Yorker is 4 times less and when the reported average salary of solo attorneys (who could be used for recruitment of judges) is times less than the current judicial salaries, making the reasons for pay raise contrived and the sort of "legacy" that ensures favorable rulings of courts for attorney Lippman in the future (Chief Administrative Judge Marks testified before the Commission begging for a pay raise on behalf of all judges, and such testimony could not happen without Lippman's approval).

That's quite a bit of "social justice" right there, that I know about, but there is more.

I surveyed civil rights lawsuits against Lippman on Pacer.gov.  There are quite a few brought against Lippman over the years.  Most of them are dismissed, but some are outstanding at the time Lippman is leaving his office.

Those lawsuits are also Lippman's "legacy" that the timid mainstream media refuses to address.

I do not know why, because, over 1.5 years of operating this blog not one judge I called corrupt and exposed for corruption tried to sue me for defamation.

You know why?  Because truth is an absolute defense, and because such a lawsuit will involve discovery.

That's why Judge Becker preferred to use the court "rule of frivolous conduct" to retaliate against me (so far successfully) by imposing upon me sanctions for making motions to recuse and for having my law license taken based on those sanctions.

Had he sued me for defamation for what I said in those motions to recuse, I would have been (1) immune from suit on the basis of litigation immunity;  (2) had absolute defense of truth and (3) would be entitled to extensive discovery that could have proven more corruption than I knew about.

So, the media's fear of defamation lawsuits for judges as the reason of not covering judicial corruption is wholly unjustified.

I will run a separate blog covering the "legacy" of lawsuits Lippman leaves behind, including the ongoing lawsuit against Lippman by - guess who - The New York State Court Officers' Association - in a separate blog.  

One very prominent feature that was NOT present in any of Lippman's speeches or rules he issued is how Lippman tried to fight judicial corruption.  

A survey of Lippman's speeches will find only flowery language praising our "best of the best" judiciary, with no word spoken, not a peep, about existence of judicial corruption or measures undertaken by Lippman to fight it.

That was despite the outcry from the public about judicial corruption, despite mutliple submissions and testimony on the subject before numerous commissions established by Lippman, including the Commission for Attorney Discipline and the Commission for Judicial Pay Raise.

In the new attorney disciplinary rules, protection for attorneys reporting judicial corruption is prominently absent.  As an attorney whose license was suspended for making a motion to recuse a corrupt judge, I know what it means.

Attorneys who referred clients to me to make motions to recuse because they did not want themselves blackballed, and because "I had nothing to lose", knew what it means.

Attorneys who did not report Kids for Cash Corruption in Pennsylvania or Greylord case corruption in Illinois, knew what it means.

Attorneys in New York stripped of their law licenses for criticism of judicial corruption (I am only the latest edition, there is a number of attorneys who lost their licenses because of criticism of judicial corruption), know what it means.

My recent suspension was to reinforce a point to the "honorable" legal profession of the State of New York a simple "pay to play" rule - keep mum about judicial corruption and you will be fine, report it and you will lose your "state-issued" license, and will be unable to earn for yourself, your family and your child (I have a minor son).

But, not exposing judicial corruption is enabling it.   

Once again, I will cover Lippman's "legacy of lawsuits" filed against him in my next blog. 

I will conclude my blog with a quote from Lippman's interview to the New York Times:

Right.

NY "new" rules of attorney discipline - more of the same

I will provide a thorough review of new attorney disciplinary rules announced in New York today (to take effect as of July 1, 2015) within several days, it can be done the same day they were announced.

Yet, I do have a couple of comments to make about reports regarding the rules.

1) I see no outrage among commentators that the "new" rules failed to consider requirements of federal antitrust law, as reflected in this year's U.S. Supreme Court case North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, and attorney disciplinary committees will continue to consist of supermajorities of market players, licensed attorneys who are (a) competitors of attorneys subject to discipline and (b) investigators and prosecutors with a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, both disqualifying features.  

The new rules did not provide, as North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v FTC required, for active supervision of attorney disciplinary committees from a neutral state agency.  

So, criminal cartels quashing competition and blocking the public from participation in attorney discipline will remain criminal cartels.

2) Whoever of New York "officials" told San Francisco chronicle that Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos were already automatically disbarred under the old rules, are in no hurry to reflect that in Skelos' and Silver's public registration status, which continues to claim that they are attorney in good standing with no record of public discipline, even though under New York law they are disbarred as of the respective dates of their convictions.

Once again, as to the main problems of New York legal profession - running it as a criminal cartel, including the discipline, and protecting those close to power from attorney disciplinary proceedings, even in the face of criminal prosecutions and convictions, they remain the same.

I will post full analysis of the new rules, and its author Judge Lippman, within several days, after I review, analyze and research them.

Stay tuned.  

Civil rights appellants - be aware that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit manipulates its court docket in order to ignore your filings and to rule against you

I already wrote about the disgraceful and unlawful anti-filing injunction filed against Mr. Neroni by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York for filing 5 civil rights cases, two of them pending and counseled (with an attorney representing him) during the time the anti-filing injunction was made.

The attorney (me) was not notified of the parallel anti-filing proceedings based on the pending counseled cases, and the cases were pre-judged by the then-Chief Judge Sharpe as frivolous.

The Appellee, Chief Judge Suddaby, filed an Appellee Brief on December 2, 2015 and served it by overnight mail, which added 1 day of service before Mr. Neroni received the brief.  Mr. Neroni was not allowed to file electronically, and was thus not notified by the court instantly that the brief was filed.

Mr. Neroni had 14 days from the day of service (December 3, 2015) to file his Reply Brief, that was until Thursday, December 17, 2015.

Mr. Neroni filed that reply brief, together with a motion to recuse the court, by overnight mail, with a guaranteed delivery, the credit card transaction showing the delivery was paid for on December 15, 2015 for $53.80.  I am a witness to the fact that the brief was filed by overnight mail and that the delivery was guaranteed by the deadline, see part of the docket report showing the dates of filings.

Yet, the appellate court made a decision against Mr. Neroni on December 18, 2015 (Docket No. 68), once again on a summary order - authority for which was contested by Mr. Neroni in his Reply Brief and motion to recuse.

The order of December 18, 2015 was never served upon Mr. Neroni, and today is December 29, 2015, nearly two weeks after the decision was made.

The order was obviously made after the court received Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse and Reply Brief, but the court stalled prompt filing of those papers to give itself time to make a decision as if Mr. Neroni did not file timely (which he did, I am a witness to it).  

Apparently, the court engaged in manipulation of its own docket by (1) denying Mr. Neroni ability to file electronically and thus controlling the date of filing and then (2) using its own misconduct in the date of filing in disregarding Mr. Neroni's motion to recuse and Reply Brief.

Of course, Mr. Neroni has no power to physically be present in court and to physically force the clerks to file his papers when they receive them, if their administrators tell them to do otherwise.

How predictable.

I will post analysis of this anti-filing order, which all civil rights plaintiffs would be interested in, later on.  I only read it today through Pacer (once again, Mr. Neroni was never served with this secretly made order).

Yet, what remains is that a federal appellate court manipulated its docket in order to ignore a motion to recuse the court and in order to affirm an unlawful punishment of a civil rights plaintiff in retaliation for criticism of incestous relationships with politically connected attorneys by district court judges and by the 2nd Circuit judges, and in order to ignore criticism of unconstitutional policies in the 2nd Circuit directed at civil rights appellants.

Stay tuned.

Frederick J. Neroni's appeal of denial by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York of his challenge to constitutionality of attorney disciplinary proceedings in New York

For those who are interested in the law and facts pertaining to a challenge my husband has made to the constitutionality of New York attorney disciplinary system, here is my husband Frederick J. Neroni's pro se appellate brief in that case, his appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

I must note that Defendants NYS Chief Judge Lippman, NYS Attorney General Schneiderman, Chief Judge of the Appellate Division 3rd Department Peters, Chairman (at the time of filing of the lawsuit, and now Chief Attorney) of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee, Appellate Division 3rd Department Duffy and former attorney of the Committee Zayas (who was, since the lawsuit was filed, let go from the Committee among investigation into allegedly filing false time sheets, but never disciplined) - this illustrative group fought tooth and claw against this brief to be filed in the scope it was actually allowed by the court to be filed.

It is interesting to read this case together with my motion to vacate the order of suspension of my federal law license by NDNY, and with another case, which I am going to report on later today, too.

Stay tuned.