On Thursday, August 17, 2023, the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department denied the motion for reinstatement of attorney Sharon Angela Skyers-Jenkins.
The case is entitled “Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department v. Sharon Angela Skyers-Jenkins,” with case no. PM-175-23.
According to the filing, Skyers-Jenkins sought reinstatement via a motion returnable on May 22, 2023. Her motion aimed to regain her attorney status after a suspension order stemming from her failure to comply with Judiciary Law § 468-a’s biennial registration requirements. In response, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department opposed the motion, noting Skyers-Jenkins’ failure to provide evidence of compliance with continuing legal education (CLE) credits mandated by the court’s rules.
The court’s review necessitated Skyers-Jenkins to demonstrate that she had met both substantive and procedural prerequisites for reinstatement. These criteria encompassed proof of adherence to the court’s orders, exhibiting good character and fitness for practicing law and showcasing that her reinstatement would be in the public’s interest.
In addition to these standards, Skyers-Jenkins was required to meet specific procedural criteria. While her suspension had been tied exclusively to non-compliance with registration requirements, she needed to fulfill an expedited procedure for reinstatement. This procedure no longer necessitated the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, but instead, demanded compliance with certain CLE credits within two years preceding the application.
The court’s assessment found Skyers-Jenkins lacking in meeting the threshold procedural requirements. Her motion asserted completion of CLE credit hours since her suspension in 2019, yet failed to provide substantiating proof or assurance that these credits fulfilled the requisite categories. Additionally, her assertion that she had met the conditions within the two-year timeframe was deemed insufficient. Correspondence from the court had informed her of these shortcomings and the necessity to provide adequate proof.
Ultimately, the court found that Skyers-Jenkins had not sufficiently established her compliance with the prerequisites for reinstatement. Thus, her motion was denied.
The Decision states:
“ORDERED that respondent’s motion is denied in its entirety.”
According to Avvo, Ms. Skyers-Jenkins is a real estate attorney in Bridgeport, CT. She attended the North Carolina Central University School of Law, graduating in 1993.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
