In Re Peters
642 F.3d 381
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Kristan Peters, admitted in NY and CT and former Dorsey & Whitney partner, appeals a seven-year suspension from practicing before the SDNY.
- The Grievance Committee found two misconducts: (i) Brackett allegation—directing a junior attorney to deface transcripts under a work-product privilege cloak; (ii) violation of a district court confidentiality order by filing transcript excerpts in a Massachusetts action.
- The findings cited violations of NY Disciplinary Rules (predecessors to RPCs): DR 1-102(a)(5), DR 1-102(A)(4), and DR 7-106(A).
- Peters challenged due process, arguing no independent hearing and reliance on Judge Baer’s prior sanctions order, and contended the two charges were not legally supportable.
- This Court applies abuse-of-discretion review for the sanction itself and de novo review for whether a disciplinary rule prohibits the conduct; the court vacates the suspension to the extent based on flawed procedures, and remands for independent proceedings.
- The panel concludes the Brackett and Confidentiality Order allegations require independent fact-finding on remand, with adequate notice, opportunity to respond, and potential reassessment of culpable state of mind.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Peters receive due process to contest the Brackett charge? | Peters asserts lack of independent hearing and inadequate notice/time for cross-examination. | Grievance Committee relied on prior Baer proceedings; reasonable under prevailing standards to forego duplicative process. | No; due process requires independent hearing on Brackett; suspension vacated to the extent based on Brackett. |
| Was there adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the Confidentiality Order allegation? | Peters argues notice was sufficient under the sanctions motion and May 2007 order. | Notice and response opportunity were adequate; the charge encompassed pre- and post-April 24 filings. | Yes as to notice; however, on remand the factual development and culpability must be re-evaluated; current ruling vacates only insofar as relying on entitlement to sanctions. |
| Did the Confidentiality Order violation require a finding of culpable mental state to sanction Peters? | Peters contends lack of culpable state of mind negates sanction. | Violations may be sanctionable with appropriate culpable state; evidence suggested bad faith. | Insufficient evidence of culpable state; remand for detailed factual findings on Peters's familiarity and intent. |
| Should the seven-year suspension be sustained, modified, or vacated in light of procedural flaws? | Severe sanction may be warranted by conduct; procedures invalidated require reassessment. | Grievance Committee’s findings support discipline; not all grounds were properly examined. | Vacated; remand for independent proceedings with full findings governing any discipline. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Edelstein, 214 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2000) (abuse of discretion in disciplinary matters; standard for review varies by issue)
- Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Scivantage, 564 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review; deference to district court in sanctioning)
- In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 1994) (due process and balancing interests in evidentiary hearings)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process notice requirements)
- Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2008) (law-of-the-case considerations; revisit only with cogent reasons)