Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Responsibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nominee faces sustained questioning over 2019 police summons and New York bar suspension
Summary
A Superior Court nominee told the Judiciary Committee a 2019 domestic‑incident summons was informally resolved and that an administrative New York suspension for missed registration was remedied; committee members pressed for court docket and bar‑discipline documentation.
A nominee for the Superior Court faced prolonged and detailed scrutiny on April 2 over a 2019 police summons from a domestic‑incident response and an administrative suspension of his New York law license for failure to timely renew registration/MCLE filings.
The nominee told the Judiciary Committee that police responded to a late‑night dispute at his home in 2019, that both parties received a summon and that the DA agreed to an informal path — the nominee described completing a short program or meetings — and no protective order was entered. He said he was not prosecuted and that the matter "evaporated" after compliance with the program. Committee members pushed for documentary verification: whether the incident generated a docket entry, whether a formal AR (accelerated rehabilitation) or family‑violence program case file exists, and whether the nominee disclosed the incident on prior background checks for public roles.
Separately, committee members pressed about an administrative suspension from the New York bar for failing to timely file registration or CLE/registration paperwork. The nominee said the omission was unintentional, that he was administratively suspended for a period beginning in 2022, and that he later sought and received reinstatement (June 13, 2024, per court documents) after completing CLE and remediation steps. Members asked why any court filings were made while he was administratively suspended and whether reinstatement should have been retroactive; the nominee said he corrected the oversight and that the New York disciplinary process agreed to a nonpublic reprimand rather than a public sanction.
Lawmakers said they expected follow-up: committee staff should request the original summons/docket entry, the record of the DA’s disposition (including any AR/family‑violence program documentation), and New York bar disciplinary and reinstatement papers. The committee recessed without votes and signaled it would reconvene to continue vetting nominees.
The exchange highlighted how personal‑conduct and bar‑discipline issues can slow confirmation processes and prompt documentary requests in judicial vetting.
