Matter of Duval
148 A.D.3d 73
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Respondent Wally Duval, admitted to the NY bar in 1988, pleaded guilty on Sept. 26, 2014 in the SDNY to conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349).
- Sentenced Jan. 7, 2015 to 20 months’ imprisonment, five years’ supervised release, $100 assessment, and $718,800.56 restitution (with forfeiture of $1,104,000 noted in plea allocution).
- Respondent did not notify the New York Appellate Division of her conviction as required by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(c).
- The Grievance Committee moved to strike her name from the roll of attorneys pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) based on her felony conviction; Duval did not oppose the motion.
- The central legal question was whether the federal conspiracy-to-commit-bank-fraud conviction is essentially similar to a New York felony such that disbarment is required under Judiciary Law § 90(4).
Issues
| Issue | Grievance Committee's Argument | Duval's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duval’s federal conviction is a felony under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e) (i.e., essentially similar to a NY felony) | The federal conspiracy to commit bank fraud is essentially similar to NY first-degree scheme to defraud (Penal Law § 190.65) because it involved knowingly submitting fraudulent loan applications and obtaining substantial proceeds | No position taken (respondent did not oppose the motion) | The conviction is essentially similar to NY scheme to defraud in the first degree and thus constitutes a felony under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(e); disbarment is automatic under § 90(4)(a) and effective Sept. 26, 2014 |
| Whether automatic disbarment procedures apply despite respondent’s failure to notify the court of her conviction | Committee relied on statutory mandate that a convicted felon "shall upon such conviction, cease to be an attorney" and absence of notification does not prevent strike | No position taken | Court ordered name stricken and directed compliance with rules for disbarred attorneys and related administrative requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Margiotta, 60 N.Y.2d 147 (test for "essential similarity" of out-of-state felony to NY felony)
- Matter of Woghin, 64 A.D.3d 5 (use of plea allocution to determine essential similarity)
- Matter of Kim, 209 A.D.2d 127 (construing federal bank-fraud–type convictions as essentially similar to NY scheme to defraud)