In Re Andres M. Aranda
789 F.3d 48
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Andres M. Aranda, admitted to NY bar in 1979 and this Court’s bar in 2012, was charged after numerous defaults and deficient conduct across multiple criminal appeals and some district-court matters.
- Specific client matters with defaults included appeals for Manigault (dismissed then reinstated; resentenced), Vallejo, Gabriel (two dismissed then reinstated), Guerrero, Batista (appeal dismissed), and Espinal (appeal dismissed). Several defaults involved missed filing fees, failure to file briefs or required forms, defective filings, and failure to cure after Court notices.
- District courts found additional deficiencies: failure to pursue a direct appeal for Sanchez despite client instructions (raising ineffective-assistance issues) and criticized performance in Morillo; Aranda failed to follow district-court directives and did not timely prosecute appeals.
- Aranda’s response to the Court’s order to show cause was incomplete, omitted explanation for many defaults, and asserted unfamiliarity with appellate procedures; the Court treated omissions as admissions or gross negligence.
- Aranda has prior disciplinary history in New York (including a one-year suspension in 2006 and multiple admonitions) involving client neglect; the pattern of repeat misconduct and obstruction in the disciplinary process were significant aggravating factors.
- The Court publicly reprimanded Aranda and suspended him from practice before the Second Circuit for eighteen months, with procedural directives for winding down pending matters.
Issues
| Issue | Aranda's Argument | Court/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defaults and neglect in multiple appeals | Defaults were due to inexperience, unfamiliarity with Court procedures, staff errors, client decisions, or lack of prejudice to clients | Court argued defaults were extensive, unexplained, repeated, and caused delay, resource waste, and risk of serious prejudice | Court held defaults established (or deemed admitted) and constituted serious misconduct warranting discipline |
| Failure to pursue instructed direct appeal (Sanchez) | Claimed lack of payment, conflict, motion to withdraw filed, and that no prejudice because sentence within plea range | Court noted attorney must file notice of appeal and pursue it until relieved; defective notice was not cured and caused delay creating likely prejudice | Court held Sanchez suffered substantial prejudice risk; Aranda failed to comply with obligations and mischaracterized the record |
| Inadequate response to order to show cause | Claimed explanations and remedial steps (associating counsel, staff changes) | Court treated omissions as admissions or gross negligence and an independent aggravating factor that obstructed disciplinary process | Court held failure to fully respond justified aggravation of discipline and fact-finding against Aranda |
| Appropriate sanction given pattern and history | Aranda offered remedial measures and mitigation | Court weighed prior suspension, repeated similar misconduct, risk to criminal defendants’ liberty interests, and obstruction | Court imposed public reprimand and 18-month suspension from practice before the Court, with directions for client notice and file turnover |
Key Cases Cited
- In re DeMell, 589 F.3d 569 (2d Cir.) (attorney defaults may expose clients to severe prejudice and demonstrate neglect)
- In re Gordon, 780 F.3d 156 (2d Cir.) (failure to respond fully to disciplinary inquiries is an aggravating factor; defaults cause waste and prejudice)
- In re Warburgh, 644 F.3d 173 (2d Cir.) (attorney’s failure to answer order to show cause may justify independent discipline and is aggravating)
- Campusano v. United States, 442 F.3d 770 (2d Cir.) (attorney must file notice of appeal and proceed until relieved even if appeal waived in plea)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S.) (failure to file an appeal can presumptively cause prejudice because it deprives defendant of the appellate proceeding)
- In re Tustaniwsky, 758 F.3d 179 (2d Cir.) (recent disciplinary precedent imposing suspension for repeated defaults, deficient briefing, and obstruction)
- In re Fengling Liu, 664 F.3d 367 (2d Cir.) (dismissal for default without client consent causes prejudice by depriving client of appellate review)