Peters v. Committee on Grievances for the United States District Court
748 F.3d 456
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Peters, admitted in NY/CT, appeals a SDNY committee order suspending her from practice for seven years for violations of the NY Code of Professional Responsibility.
- This is Peters’ second appeal after remanding for an independent evidentiary hearing on charges.
- Charges include Brackett Allegation (instruction to mark up transcripts to invoke work product) and Confidentiality Order Allegation (copying/transcripts use in MA action despite confidentiality order).
- Judge Smith conducted extensive hearing and issued an R&R recommending five-year suspension; the Committee ultimately imposed seven years.
- Appellate review is for abuse of discretion with respect to sanctions, with deference to credibility determinations and the committee’s findings; court affirms the seven-year suspension as sui generis.
- The court holds there was no error in the findings on the Brackett Allegation and sufficient culpable state of mind for the Confidentiality Order Allegation; sanction deemed not substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peters violated the Professional Code on the Brackett Allegation | Peters claims error in credibility findings and record evaluation. | Committee properly adopted Judge Smith’s credibility determinations and substantial evidence supports guilt. | Yes; findings supported guilt on Charge One. |
| Whether Peters violated the Confidentiality Order Allegation | Lack of clear culpable state of mind and insufficient proof. | Committee found venal intent based on emails and conduct. | Yes; sufficient culpable intent established (Charge Three). |
| Whether the seven-year suspension is warranted given precedent | Discipline excessive; lacks analogous precedent. | Case sui generis; seven years reasonable given aggravating factors. | Seven-year suspension reasonably exercised discretion. |
| Whether Peters received a fair disciplinary hearing on remand | Argues procedural defects and lack of notice. | Remand included independent hearing; ample notice and record. | No reversible error; hearing process adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simels v. Grievance Comm. for S. Dist. of N.Y., 48 F.3d 640 (2d Cir. 1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard for disciplinary decisions)
- In re Peters, 642 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2011) (vacated certain findings; remand for detailed fact-finding; sui generis conduct basis for sanction)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive review of sanctions; backstop against unreasonableness)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (vindictiveness safeguards in retrial/sentencing context)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (credibility assessments given deference in adjudicatory review)