In the Matter of KRISTAN PETERS (Admitted as KRISTAN LIZA BETH PETERS) an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL DIS CIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.
First Department
March 3, 2015
3 N.Y.S.3d 357
Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Com mittee, New York City (Naomi F. Goldstein of counsel), for petitioner.
Richard M. Maltz, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the Third Judicial Department on May 16, 2000 as Kristan Lizabeth Peters. She was also admitted to the bar in Connecticut, where she currently resides. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law in the First Judicial Department.
By order of April 10, 2013 (In re Peters, 941 F Supp 2d 359 [SD NY 2013]), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District) suspended respondent for seven years, nunc pro tunc to April 10, 2008 (the date of her interim suspension) for misconduct committed in connection with a federal civil action. Specifically, respondent was suspended for instructing an associate in her law firm to alter deposition transcripts with work product for the purpose of preventing their discoverability and misleading the court as to the matter; copying the transcripts in intentional disregard of the court‘s orders; and using the transcripts in a federal action in Massachusetts in violation of the court‘s confidentiality order.
Respondent‘s misconduct arose out of a federal lawsuit commenced in 2007 by the law firm of Dorsey & Whitney on behalf of Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, Inc. (Wolters). Respondent, then a partner at Dorsey & Whitney, was lead counsel in the matter. Wolters alleged that three of its former employees had taken certain proprietary information and divulged it to their new employer. The district court granted a temporary restraining order and ordered expedited discovery. The parties exchanged discovery documents, and the individual defendants were deposed. While discovery was ongoing, the district court entered a confidentiality order providing in part that certain material—including all discovery material at issue here—“shall not be used in any other litigation proceeding,” and that the district court‘s jurisdiction to enforce those restrictions would survive the lawsuit.
The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the de
Despite the dismissal, respondent refused to return the discovery material produced by the defendants, including three CDs (containing 153,000 pages of documents) that were produced after the dismissal had been quietly effected. Despite repeated orders by the district court to return all discovery material, including copies of deposition transcripts, the return of discovery material was not completed until two weeks after the suit was dismissed. In the meantime, respondent filed a motion for temporary injunctive relief in the District of Massachusetts, appending 115 pages of material produced in New York that were subject to the confidentiality order.
The defendants moved for sanctions, and the district court scheduled an evidentiary hearing. The parties subsequently settled, and the defendants withdrew the sanctions motion; but the court, having its own concerns regarding the lawyers’ conduct, proceeded with the hearing. After a five-day evidentiary hearing, during which respondent, represented by counsel, testified on November 30, 2007, the district court imposed a total of 27 non-monetary sanctions on respondent, among others.1 In addition, the district court referred respondent to the Southern District Committee on Grievances (Grievance Committee).2
After the Second Circuit affirmed the sanctions imposed on respondent by the district court,3 the Grievance Committee concluded that respondent‘s misconduct had violated: New York Code of Professional Responsibility
On appeal, by a decision and order dated April 25, 2011, the Second Circuit vacated the Grievance Committee‘s suspension order and remanded for further proceedings, finding that respondent was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the defaced transcript allegations (In re Peters, 642 F3d 381, 390 [2d Cir 2011]).4 As to the breach of the confidentiality order, the Second Circuit found that, while respondent unquestionably violated the order, the Grievance Committee had made insufficient findings as to whether respondent had the requisite venal intent to sustain a
On remand, the Grievance Committee assigned the proceeding against respondent to a Magistrate, who, between June and August 2012, conducted an 11-day evidentiary hearing at which respondent testified on her own behalf and cross-examined witnesses. In a 118-page report dated January 23, 2013, the Magistrate found that respondent acted with a culpable state of mind when she committed the misconduct with which she was charged, namely: respondent‘s direction to an associate to alter or amend documents for the purpose of preventing their discoverability and the attempt to mislead the court as to these events; and respondent‘s copying of transcripts
By decision of April 10, 2013, the Grievance Committee adopted the Magistrate‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law, but suspended respondent from practice before the Southern District of New York for seven years, nunc pro tunc to April 10, 2008. The Grievance Committee believed that respondent was deserving of a longer punishment for the following reasons:
“[Respondent‘s] most serious failing involves the corruption of a young and inexperienced lawyer, over whom she had power and authority, and whom she ordered to commit conduct that could have ended with his own disciplinary hearing. . . . [Respondent] exhibits no remorse for her inappropriate conduct; rather, she arrogantly persists in trying to salvage her reputation at the expense of the unfortunate [associate]—branding him and others at the Dorsey firm as liars when it is she who has consistently lied, both about what she did and about why she did it.
“Equally problematic is Respondent‘s habit of twisting the truth. At the hearing, [respondent] continually tried to shift blame to virtually every other person who came within arm‘s length of the Wolters Kluwer case . . . Respondent‘s flagrant mischaracterization of the record, and her meritless objections to [the Magistrate‘s] carefully crafted and amply supported findings, indicate that she has yet to accept any responsibility for what the Committee views as serious professional wrongdoing” (In re Peters, 941 F Supp 2d 359, 366 [SD NY 2013]).
Respondent, represented by counsel, appealed to the Second Circuit, which by decision of April 4, 2014 affirmed the seven-
The Departmental Disciplinary Committee now seeks an order pursuant to
Respondent does not assert any of the defenses to reciprocal discipline enumerated at
Thus, the only issue left for this Court to decide is the appropriate sanction to be imposed. On review of the entire record and under all the circumstances, we find that the sanction to be imposed should be coextensive with that directed by the
Finally, because respondent will be obliged to file a petition for reinstatement to resume the practice of law in this state (
Accordingly, the Committee‘s motion should be granted to the extent of suspending respondent from the practice of law for a period of five years nunc pro tunc to April 10, 2010, and until the further order of this Court.
Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, DeGrasse and Kapnick, JJ., concur.
Respondent suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York for a period of five years, nunc pro tunc to April 10, 2010, and until further order of this Court.