Canadian Attorney Practicing in New York Properly Convicted of Unlicensed Practice of Law

The First Department affirmed the conviction of a Canadian attorney (not admitted in New York) whose New York law firm, which employed members of the New York bar, represented clients in immigration matters. The complainants were former clients who testified they retained the defendant’s law firm based upon their belief defendant was licensed to practice in New York. The complainants testified they did not receive the services they paid for and were not refunded their money.  The defendant was charged with grand larceny, scheme to defraud and unlicensed practice of law.  The First Department determined there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions even though there was no evidence defendant explicitly represented she was licensed to practice law in New York.  Several unique issues were discussed including: the Attorney General’s (AG’s) loss of documentary evidence (advertisements and retainer agreements) so the appellate court was unable to review them; the Attorney General’s jurisdiction over the criminal prosecution under Executive Law 63; the power of the Division of State Police to request that the Attorney General prosecute the case; the law of the case with respect to the First Department’s reversal of defendant’s conviction after her first trial and its refusal to dismiss the indictment; and the trial court’s refusal to substitute counsel for the defendant and giving defendant the choice to proceed pro se (which she did).  In discussing the sufficiency of the evidence, the First Department wrote:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the AG, as we must …, we find that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. It was not unreasonable for the jury to have concluded that by promoting herself in an advertisement as being a lawyer specializing in immigration, and having an office in New York, defendant intended to signal that she was licensed to practice in New York. That some of the lawyers working in the office were admitted in New York is of little moment, since defendant traded almost exclusively on her own reputation and expertise in seeking to attract clientele. Further, the fact that defendant’s advertisements made clear that she was admitted to practice in Canada did not preclude the possibility that a client would reasonably believe that she was also admitted in New York, but found it unnecessary to publicize that fact based on her location in Manhattan.

It was also not irrational for the jury to conclude that defendant had an economic motive for concealing her lack of a New York license, despite the fact that such a license was not necessary to process her clients’ immigration applications. Aside from the cachet that prospective clients would have attributed to having a lawyer who was a member of the New York bar, the jury could have concluded that CPI’s clients valued the fact that the attorney they retained was subject to the jurisdiction of local disciplinary authorities if they were unsatisfied with defendant’s work (as many of them were). Indeed, it is clear that CPI’s clients placed a large premium on defendant’s bar status, given that each of them testified that they would not have retained the firm had they known that defendant was not admitted to practice in New York. People v Codina, 2013 NY Slip Op 06291, 1st Dept 10-1-13