On Thursday, June 1, 2023, the State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department denied the motion for reinstatement filed by attorney Hubert Christopher Raglan for failing to comply with the registration requirements.
The case is entitled “Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department v. Hubert Christopher Raglan,” with case no. PM-110-23.
The respondent, who was admitted to the practice of law by the court in 2007, faced a suspension by a court order in September 2022. The suspension was a consequence of the respondent’s failure to comply with the attorney registration requirements outlined in Judiciary Law § 468.
Currently, the respondent seeks reinstatement, referring to the relevant provisions in the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters and Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16(a). However, the petitioner opposes the respondent’s motion, highlighting his ineligibility for reinstatement due to his failure to comply with the registration requirements for the 2023-2024 biennial period.
The process of reinstating a suspended attorney requires the establishment of certain criteria by clear and convincing evidence. The attorney must demonstrate compliance with the suspension order and the rules of the court, possess the necessary character and fitness to practice law, and show that reinstatement would be in the public’s interest.
According to the judiciary law and statewide applicable rules, every attorney admitted to practice in New York, including those who have been suspended, is required to maintain compliance with the registration requirements. Failure to fulfill these obligations leads to potential discipline. Therefore, a suspended attorney who fails to meet their registration obligations remains subject to potential discipline and is not entitled to reinstatement, as highlighted in Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468 – a [Devlin], 197 AD3d at 1432.
In the present case, although the respondent rectified his initial registration delinquency, he is currently delinquent with the registration requirements for the 2023-2024 biennial period. Consequently, since the respondent is presently in violation of his registration obligation and subject to potential discipline, the court denied his motion for reinstatement.
Mr. Raglan attended the University College London and the University of Michigan. He practices in Detroit, Michigan. He is licensed in Michigan and New York with license no. 4524534. His info can be found on opengovny.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
