On Thursday, July 18, 2024, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department publicly censured Christopher D’Andre Parker, an attorney admitted to practice law in New York in 2003.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Christopher D’Andre Parker,” with case no. 2024-02560.
The public censure stemmed from discipline Parker had received in Connecticut, where he is also licensed to practice law. In 2018, Parker’s daughter was the victim of a domestic violence incident in Connecticut. At a hearing related to the criminal case against the defendant, Parker’s daughter sought to address the court to request an increase in a protective order. However, the judge denied the daughter’s request to speak and adjourned the matter.
Upset by the judge’s decision, Parker filed a complaint against the judge with Connecticut’s Judicial Review Council, alleging the judge refused to allow his daughter to speak at the defendant’s sentencing. However, Parker mischaracterized the hearing as a sentencing, when in reality no disposition had been made in the case. The matter was simply continued to allow the defendant to complete a diversion program.
The judge later filed a grievance against Parker, asserting Parker had made false claims in his complaint. Connecticut authorities investigated and ultimately found Parker had violated rules regarding dishonesty by misrepresenting that the hearing was a sentencing. They also determined comments Parker had made about the judge in correspondence following the grievance were disrespectful. As a result, in 2022 Connecticut authorities reprimanded Parker.
The New York Attorney Grievance Committee then sought reciprocal discipline against Parker based on the Connecticut reprimand. The Committee argued Parker’s actions of making misrepresentations to a tribunal and disrespectful comments about a judge violated New York’s professional conduct rules.
In its decision, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division reviewed the facts of the case and Connecticut’s sanction. It noted Parker had no prior disciplinary history and his initial complaint seemed to stem from anger over his daughter’s situation rather than malice. While finding Parker’s comments about the judge were inappropriate, the court also acknowledged they did not directly accuse the judge of corruption.
Given these mitigating factors and that the underlying offense was not particularly egregious, the New York court determined to issue a public censure of Parker, in line with the private reprimand issued by Connecticut authorities.
The Disposition states:
“Wherefore, it is Ordered that the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.13, predicated upon similar discipline imposed by the Connecticut Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, is granted, and It is further ordered that respondent Christopher Parker, admitted as Christopher D’Andre Parker, is publicly censured for the underlying misconduct.”
According to the court filing, Mr. Parker acquired his law license in New York in 2003.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
