Grievance Committee of the Southern District of New York v. Grimm, 691 F. App'x 668

Michael G. Grimm, an attorney, pled guilty in the E.D.N.Y. to aiding and assisting in preparation of false tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206(2)) and was convicted on July 21, 2015.
The S.D.N.Y. Committee on Grievances (the Committee) issued an order under S.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 1.5(d)(1) directing Grimm be stricken from the court’s roll unless he submitted a written response.
Grimm submitted a written response seeking suspension (reciprocal discipline) rather than striking, citing the New York Appellate Division’s pending disciplinary suspension; he also argued he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
On August 22, 2016 the Committee declined Grimm’s request and ordered his name stricken from the roll. Grimm appealed to the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, considered whether Grimm was entitled to a hearing, and whether the Committee erred by imposing disbarment rather than reciprocal suspension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Grimm was entitled to an evidentiary hearing before discipline under Local Civ. R. 1.5(d)	Grimm: Rule requires a hearing; he showed good cause and risk of erroneous deprivation without one	Committee: Rule permits a hearing if good cause shown but allows discipline without a hearing when no good cause is shown	Court: No entitlement to a hearing as a matter of right; rule vests Committee discretion to hold a hearing and no abuse of discretion occurred
Whether Committee must impose reciprocal discipline (suspension) rather than discipline based on federal conviction	Grimm: Because Appellate Division imposed suspension, Committee should impose reciprocal suspension	Committee: Committee may independently impose discipline based on federal conviction under Local Rule 1.5(b)(1) without deferring to other courts’ sanctions	Court: Committee acted within its independent disciplinary authority; rejecting reciprocal-discipline argument was not error
Whether striking Grimm from the roll was an abuse of discretion given notice and opportunity to respond	Grimm: Striking is excessive and procedurally deficient without hearing	Committee: Grimm received required written notice and opportunity to respond; conviction supports discipline	Court: No abuse of discretion; process satisfied and discipline permissible

In re Peters, 642 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard of review for district-court disciplinary orders)
In re Kandekore, 460 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 2006) (conviction is ground for discipline under S.D.N.Y. rules)
Matter of Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1994) (district court’s inherent authority to discipline attorneys)
In re Edelstein, 214 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2000) (definition and scope of reciprocal discipline)