In Re Fengling Liu, 664 F.3d 367

Liu, admitted to the New York bar, runs a immigration-focused practice and is a member of several federal and state bars; the Second Circuit referred her to its Committee on Admissions and Grievances for possible disciplinary action based on multiple alleged misconducts (negligence, failure to update clients, improper termination of representation, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, inadequate supervision, filing petitions in the wrong venue, and undisclosed ghostwriting).
The Committee’s investigation included a June 2009 hearing; the Committee later filed its report with findings of clear and convincing evidence of misconduct warranting discipline.
The Committee concluded Liu’s undisclosed ghostwriting violated her duty of candor under New York law, but the Second Circuit did not find ghostwriting sanctionable in this case, instead focusing on other misconduct.
Liu responded to the Committee’s report, admitting various failures, asserting mitigating factors, and arguing for private reprimand.
The court ultimately publically reprimanded Liu for the misconduct found, and required reporting and disclosure obligations, while ruling ghostwriting did not itself warrant discipline.
Appendices contained the February 2009 and July 2009 orders directing further proceedings and detailing facts about Attorney A (not Liu) and Liu’s role in the matters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ghostwriting misconduct disputed	Liu argues ghostwriting violated candor; committee found it non-sanctionable	Court emphasizes lack of precedent and intent to mislead; not sanctionable	Ghostwriting not sanctionable in this case
Wrong-venue filings	Liu filed in Second Circuit for convenience; warnings noted by courts	Knew correct venue but continued; negligently violated venue rules	Findings support disciplinary action for filing in wrong venue; sanctions justified
Duties to withdraw and supervise	Liu claims inadequate guidance; relied on others; supervision shortcomings	Liu bore supervisory responsibility; failed to ensure proper withdrawal and docket management	Conduct violations established; supports public reprimand
Prejudice to clients	Some dismissed cases had merit; clients were not prejudiced	Dismissals deprived clients of review by Article III judges regardless of merit	Committee’s prejudice findings adopted; supported reprimand
Severity and form of discipline	Liu’s overall conduct warrants serious sanction but argues for private reprimand	Pattern of neglect and high-volume practice justify public reprimand	Public reprimand warranted; reporting requirements imposed

Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2001) (ghostwriting misconduct discussed in other courts)
In re Tavon, 66 A.D.3d 224 (2d Dep’t 2009) (duty to disclose ghostwriting under NY ethics rules questioned; some opinions permit nondisclosure)
In re Gruen, 55 A.D.3d 88 (2d Dep’t 2008) (NY ethics concerns; disclosure duties and related misconduct considerations)
In re Stein, 189 A.D.2d 128 (1st Dep’t 1993) (duty to disclose or misrepresentation concerns in attorney drafting for pro se)