New York State Appeals Court rules against NY attorney in Maryland disbarment ruling

On Thursday, September 1, 2022, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department of the State of New York ruled on the motion of the Attorney Grievance Commission relating to charges for attorney discipline against New York attorney Jason Edward Rheinstein.

The case, titled In the Matter of Jason Edward Rheinstein, was brought by Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. Case #PM-149-22.

The charges cited Rheinstein’s violation of Rules 1(a), 3.1(a), 3.4(c), 4.4, 8.4(a), and (c) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

Rheinstein was disbarred by the Court of Appeals Maryland for failing to provide competent representation to clients; advancing frivolous claims and contentions; acting unfairly toward opposing parties and counsel, failing to respect the rights of third persons; and committing professional misconduct by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, along with conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

According to the filing:

“. . . respondent was disbarred in September 2020by the US District Court for the District of Maryland and also disbarred in Pennsylvania and Washington DC . . . in December 2020. Virginia revoked respondent’s license to practice law in that state in July 2021. In April 2022, California imposed probation and a three-year stayed suspension from the practice of law after respondent entered into a stipulation and pleaded nolo contendere with respect to the allegations. In May 2022, Florida disbarred respondent . . .  and, in June 2022, New Jersey imposed a one-year suspension from the practice of law in that state, with the suspension to commence after respondent cures his administrative suspension in that state.”

The filing continues:

“Respondent subsequently failed to provide notice of his disbarment to this Court and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department(hereinafter AGC) within 30 days following the imposition of that discipline, as was required by Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 (d).

AGC now moves to impose discipline upon respondent pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) §1240.13 and Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department(22 NYCRR) § 806.13based uponhisestablishedmisconductanddisbarmentinMaryland.Respondent opposes the motion, raising factors in mitigation, as well as invoking all three of the available defenses to AGC’s motion (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13 [b]). Respondent has also filed seven cross motions, requesting, among other things, that this Court take judicial notice of various exhibits, which cross motions are largely opposed by AGC. The parties have also been heard at oral argument on their cross motions.”

According to the Attorney Grievance Commission respondent has not established any of the available defenses to the imposition of discipline in the State of New York, and that respondent violations of Maryland’s Rules of Professional Conduct are identical or substantially similar to New York’s Professional Conduct. The AGC noted that respondent’s demonstrated pattern of engaging in vexatious litigation and denying or minimizing his responsibility for his actions are sufficiently established, as is his lack of any meaningful remorse or insight into the damage such misconduct causes the reputation of the bar and the members of the public, who rely upon the expertise and professionalism of the lawyers who serve them.

The AGC then concluded in its Motion that, to protect the public maintain the honor and integrity of the profession, and deter others from committing similar misconduct, respondent should be disbarred in the State of New York.

Consequently, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department, granted AGC’s motion.

The dispositive portion of the Order reads in part:

“ORDERED that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted; and it is further. . .

ORDERED that respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law of the State of New York, effective immediately; and it is further.

ORDERED that respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State;”

Mr. Rheinstein earned his Juris Doctor from the Georgetown University Law Center, graduating in 2004. He has practiced in Severna Park, Maryland. He had been licensed in New York, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Virginia, California, Florida and New Jersey. His info online can be found here.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.