Though 400 Second St., NW, in The Shut-Down City has “settled our brains for a long winter’s nap,” there appears a disciplinary announcement that is more than the usual someone-else-did-it, so-we-do-it-too.
The “someone else” is ME’s indigent legal assistance crew and the Supreme Court thereof, with 2 Cir in on the play. I’ll just not name the subject thereof, for though the aforesaid jurisdictions felt the punishment fit the “crime,” the Empire State, namely, the First Dep’t of our App Div, thought otherwise.
And here’s USTC’s: https://ustaxcourt.gov/files/documents/Announcement_12232025.pdf
What d’ya think? Was ME too strict, or NY too lenient? Is reciprocity supposed to be just that, buy whatever the first disciplinarian says, absent overreaching?
Taishoff Law 
The link no longer works, but I found the 14-page NY explanation. This seems to have started with a confrontation between the lawyer and a tow-truck impound lot. I have been in that situation myself, or at least in a discussion with the police about my client’s rights, and since the law was on my side I won. I don’t know Maine law or practice, but at a certain point this guy should have backed off.
The solution is obvious. He’s barred from representing Maine clients in Tax Court for three years, but New York clients for only one year. What’s so difficult about finding reciprocity, in that?
LikeLike