In the Matter of WILLIAM F. SORIN (Admitted as WILLIAM FREDERICK SORIN), an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.
First Department
November 8, 2007
845 N.Y.S.2d 250
Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee, New York City (Raymond Vallejo of counsel), for petitioner.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (James L. Brochin of counsel), for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Respondent William F. Sorin was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on February 11, 1974, under the name William Frederick Sorin. At all times relevant to these proceedings, respondent maintained his principal place of business within the First Judicial Department.
On November 2, 2006, respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to a one-count felony information charging conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of
A conviction of a federal felony does not trigger automatic disbarment unless the offense would constitute a felony under the New York Penal Law (see Matter of Kim, 209 AD2d 127, 129 [1995];
While the underlying federal felonies of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities and mail fraud have no direct felony analogs under New York law, where the statutory language defining the federal offense is not “essentially similar” to a felony under the laws of this State, the essential similarity between the federal offense and a New York felony may be established in the admissions under oath made during respondent‘s federal plea allocution, which may be read in conjunction with the federal indictment or information (Matter of Peiffer, 274 AD2d 158, 159 [2000]; Matter of Lulkin, 258 AD2d 209, 210 [1999]).
During his plea allocution, respondent admitted that, while general counsel of Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI), from the 1990s to 2002 he conspired with other former senior executives at CTI to conceal that Comverse stock options grants were being backdated to dates when the stock was trading at periodic low points. He further admitted that he “approved proxy statements and SEC filings which falsely reported that Comverse options were issued with an exercise price at the fair market value of the stock on the grant date, when in fact Comverse was issuing backdated options with a . . . lower [price] . . . and which therefore should have been accounted for as compensation to its employees. I knew that those SEC filings would be transmitted electronically to the SEC and that the audited financial statements would be mailed to Comverse shareholders.”
Respondent‘s admitted conduct corresponds to the New York felony of scheme to defraud in the first degree (Penal
We further note that respondent‘s plea admission that he approved CTI‘s proxy statements and SEC filings which falsely reported that the options were issued with a fair exercise price knowing that the SEC filings would be transmitted to the SEC and the audited financial statements would be mailed to Comverse shareholders, is also essentially similar to the New York felony of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree (
Accordingly, the Committee‘s motion to strike respondent‘s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to
Respondent‘s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, nunc pro tunc to November 2, 2006.