“Digital Impersonation as an Aggravating Factor in Attorney Discipline”
Commentary on Matter of Perry (2025 NY Slip Op 03386)

1. Introduction

Matter of Perry concerns disciplinary proceedings brought by the Attorney Grievance Committee (“AGC”) for New York’s First Judicial Department against William David Perry, a lawyer admitted in 2013. After Perry’s conviction for criminal contempt, stalking, and harassment—conduct involving the creation of seventeen fake social-media accounts that impersonated his former girlfriend and targeted the criminal prosecutor and the prosecutor’s mother—the AGC sought professional discipline. The core issues before the Appellate Division were:

• Whether Perry’s crimes constituted “serious crimes” under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d).
• What sanction was appropriate in light of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The Referee recommended a six-month suspension, but the Court ultimately imposed a one-year suspension, explicitly holding that digital impersonation aimed at protected parties aggravates sanction severity even for first-time respondents. This pronouncement is poised to guide future attorney disciplinary cases involving on-line misconduct and violation of protective orders.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The First Department confirmed that Perry’s convictions are “serious crimes,” disaffirmed the Referee’s recommendation as too lenient, and suspended Perry from the practice of law for one year, effective thirty days after the decision. Key findings include:

• Perry violated two orders of protection and orchestrated a prolonged campaign of digital harassment.
• He showed no remorse, blamed others, and behaved dilatorily in the disciplinary process.
• Although he had no prior disciplinary record, the gravity of his criminal misconduct placed the case closer to precedents that warranted a full-year suspension.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court drew heavily on a line of First Department decisions addressing contemptuous or harassing acts by attorneys:

• Matter of Walters
• One-year suspension for violating protective orders; respondent had prior discipline and no remorse.
• Matter of Dorfman
• One-year suspension for federal criminal contempt; aggravated by lack of remorse.
• Matter of Santana
• One-year suspension for harassing neighbour through false police reports and lack of contrition.
• Matter of Muller
• Six-month suspension; mitigating evidence of alcoholism balanced against stalking-type behaviour.
• Matter of Arkun
• Censure only; significant mitigation such as medical issues, extensive pro bono, and rehabilitation.
• Matter of Cutler
• Six-month suspension for federal contempt; digital harassment was not at issue.

By juxtaposing Perry’s conduct with these cases, the Court created a spectrum: censure ➔ 3–6 months ➔ 12 months. It positioned Perry at the top end because, unlike Muller or Arkun, he lacked compelling mitigation, and his conduct targeted multiple victims—some wholly unconnected to the underlying domestic dispute (the prosecutor’s mother).

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning turned on three intertwined principles:

1. Judiciary Law § 90(4)(g) restricts issues in a “serious crime” hearing to the sanction, not the conviction’s propriety. Thus, Perry’s attempts to re-litigate guilt were disregarded.
2. Aggravation–Mitigation Balancing. Applying 22 NYCRR 1240.8(b)(2), the Court weighed:
   • Aggravation: violation of two protective orders, impersonation via fake accounts, extension of harassment to third parties, absence of remorse, and dilatory conduct in the disciplinary process.
   • Mitigation: good-character letters and an otherwise clean disciplinary record—deemed “not compelling” given the gravity of the crimes.
3. Need to Protect the Public & Maintain Confidence. Echoing Matter of Doyle, the Court stressed that discipline serves to safeguard the bar’s reputation and deter similar misconduct, especially as social-media abuse becomes prevalent.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

The decision establishes a clear precedent that digital impersonation and social-media campaigns that violate protective orders are treated as especially egregious. Likely consequences include:

• Referees and grievance committees will cite Perry when recommending or seeking upper-range suspensions for online harassment.
• Attorneys with no prior record cannot rely on first-offender status if the wrongdoing involved sophisticated or multi-victim cyber-conduct.
• Respondents who exhibit post-conviction defiance or procedural delay will see such behaviour characterised as independent aggravation.
• Courts may give greater weight to the identity of harassment victims—targeting prosecutors or uninvolved third parties intensifies sanctions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Serious Crime (Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d)) – Includes any felony or misdemeanour involving moral turpitude. Once a conviction is deemed “serious,” discipline is mandatory; the only open question is how severe.
• Referee System – In disciplinary matters, a Referee hears evidence and recommends a sanction, but the Appellate Division makes the final decision.
• Orders of Protection – Court directives restraining contact or harassment. Violating them is itself a crime (criminal contempt).
• Aggravating vs. Mitigating Factors – Circumstances that respectively increase or decrease sanction severity (e.g., remorse = mitigation; repeated violations = aggravation).
• Dilatory Conduct – Purposeful delays or non-compliance in legal proceedings, viewed unfavourably as disrespect to the tribunal.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Perry contributes a modern, cyber-centric amplification to New York’s disciplinary jurisprudence. The First Department explicitly regards digital impersonation used to undermine protective orders and harass third parties as an aggravating factor justifying a full-year suspension even where the attorney has no prior disciplinary history. The decision reaffirms that professional privilege is conditional on respect for the rule of law and court orders, and that on-line misconduct will be treated with the same (or greater) seriousness as traditional forms of harassment. Going forward, attorneys should heed Perry’s case as a stern reminder: the digital realm offers no sanctuary from ethical obligations, and failure to internalise that truth can result in the harshest professional consequences.