On Tuesday, April 8, 2025, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department publicly censured attorney Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr. The decision follows disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, stemming from Martir’s mishandling of a client’s legal matter.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr.,” with case no. 2024-07338.
Martir faced allegations related to his representation of a client, identified as M.M. In or about July 2021, M.M. hired Martir to file a pardon application in New Jersey. However, between July 2021 and March 2022, Martir reportedly failed to adequately communicate with M.M. and did not diligently attend to the case. This lack of attention led M.M. to file a civil suit against Martir in Pennsylvania, resulting in a default judgment of $2,675.25 against him in July 2022.
Martir received notice of this judgment but did not take any action to appeal or satisfy the judgment until he was under investigation by disciplinary authorities. In April 2024, Martir, represented by counsel, entered into a joint petition with the Pennsylvania Office of Disciplinary Counsel, admitting to professional misconduct. He consented to a public reprimand from the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, acknowledging violations of several Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, including failure to provide competent representation and neglect of client communication.
The New York Attorney Grievance Committee subsequently sought a reciprocal public censure based on the discipline imposed in Pennsylvania. Under New York law, the court may consider the disciplinary actions taken by other jurisdictions, and Martir was given the opportunity to contest the findings. However, he did not appear in the New York proceedings, and his previous disciplinary history, which includes multiple admonitions and reprimands for similar issues, was taken into account.
The Appellate Court emphasized that significant weight is typically given to sanctions imposed by the jurisdiction where the misconduct occurred. In this case, the court determined that a public censure was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of Martir’s actions and aligning with precedents in similar cases.
As a result, the motion for a public censure was granted, formally reprimanding Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr., for his misconduct in legal practice.
The Disposition states:
“Wherefore, it is Ordered that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department for an order publicly censuring respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, Judiciary Law 90(2), and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, predicated on similar discipline imposed by the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, is granted, and respondent, Carlos Alberto Martir, Jr., is publicly censured.”
According to the filing, Mr. Martir, Jr., acquired his law license in New York in 1980.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
