In Re Rome, 685 F. App'x 49

Thomas S. Rome, admitted to NY bar in 1983 and this Court’s bar in 2014, repeatedly defaulted in multiple immigration appeals he represented in the Second Circuit.
Relevant appeals: Saintil v. Lynch (14-3542), Gordon v. Lynch (14-4361), Clue v. Lynch (15-1992), Vu v. Lynch (15-2209), Salcedo v. Lynch (15-3305), and Forbes v. Lynch (15-3899).
Defaults included failing to file required Form C/A or make filings text-searchable, failing to file briefs, failing to pay filing fees or move for in forma pauperis, and filing defective motions; some defaults led to dismissal of appeals.
Rome offered explanations: staff/technology errors, family medical emergencies, client communications, and beliefs that he had been relieved or that appeals were moot; he also implemented remedial measures (checklists, calendaring, staff training).
The Court found many explanations insufficient, noted several defaults occurred after Rome was put on disciplinary notice, and emphasized prejudice risk given the immigration context.
Disposition: the Court publicly reprimanded Rome and ordered release of the decision to disciplinary authorities and public posting.

Issue	Rome's Argument	Court's Argument	Held
Repeated defaults in filing required forms and briefs	Defaults caused by paralegal/technology errors and law‑office mistakes	Rome had responsibility to supervise staff and ensure compliance	Rome culpable for multiple defaults; discipline warranted
Failure to cure defects or timely respond to Court notices	Press of other matters and lack of awareness until after dismissal	Reasonable counsel must respond to Court communications and cure defects	Court rejected excuse; defaults unjustified
Failure to withdraw properly or address client’s handwritten termination	Rome believed client’s handwritten note relieved him of obligations or that appeal was moot	Counsel remains responsible until Court grants withdrawal; should seek extension or Court guidance	Rome improperly assumed termination/mootness; should have acted affirmatively
Mitigation (family emergencies and remedial measures)	Family illnesses and death explain some defaults; instituted calendaring/checklists	Family emergencies partially mitigate some 2015 defaults, but remedial steps were ineffective given later defaults	Mitigation noted but insufficient to avoid public reprimand

In re Aranda, 789 F.3d 48 (2d Cir.) (discipline in appeals affecting significant liberty interests)
In re Villanueva, [citation="633 F. App'x 1"] (2d Cir.) (family emergencies can mitigate culpability)
In re Payne, 707 F.3d 195 (2d Cir.) (counsel may not permit an appeal’s termination by allowing dismissal for lack of prosecution)
In re Roman, 601 F.3d 189 (2d Cir.) (continuation of misconduct after notice is an aggravating factor)
In re DeMell, 589 F.3d 569 (2d Cir.) (experienced attorneys expected to have practices to avoid defaults)
In re Schwartz, [citation="665 F. App'x 99"] (2d Cir.) (failure to change behavior after show‑cause is aggravating)
In re Castillo, [citation="645 F. App'x 41"] (2d Cir.) (same)