A New York lawyer who lacks connections to the judicary denied reinstatement

A New York State lawyer who was disbarred for being convicted for a felony DWI was recently denied reinstatement by the New York State Appellate Division 3rd Department.

Of course, we are still to see judges convicted of felony DWIs and disbarred - usually, when judges are drunk, their cases are immediately reduced to misdemeanors or even violations, and nothing happens to them in the matter of discipline.

And, apparently, attorney Anya Mironova Tendler lacked connections to the judiciary that, for example, felon Solomon Wachtler, attempted kidnapper of children, sender of obscene material to a child and extortionist had - his law license was reinstated without even an explanation to the public what made the court system so forgiving about him, see my blogs about him here and here.

I am not saying that it is good to drink and drive.

What I am saying though is that there is a selective enforcement of discipline to attorneys who do have connections with (or are, or have been part of) the judiciary, and those who don't have those connections.  Judges who drink and drive - and who shamelessly use their position to get out of criminal prosecution, are not disciplined as attorneys at all in New York State, and criminal charges that are filed against them are never allowed to result in felony convictions, that would cause automatic disbarment, as it did for attorney A. Mironova Tendler. 

And, in view of the fact that attorney licenses are "regulated" (taken and given back) also by the judiciary, such a leniency towards their own smacks of corruption and undermines the whole purpose of regulation to protect consumers.

As I said in the lawsuit Neroni v Zayas in 2013 (which was conveniently dismissed without any in-depth analysis of selective enforcement issues by U.S. District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, and then was no less conveniently considered frivolous and used as a basis for an anti-filing injunction by the then NDNY Chief Judge Gary Sharpe) if attorneys working for the government, connected to the judiciary and part of the judiciary, the most powerful attorneys who can wield the most power and cause the most harm to the public, are not within the reach of attorney discipline, the promise of consumer protection through attorney discipline is a fake.