Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(ii): These provisions authorize immediate suspension when an attorney is convicted of a “serious crime,” followed by a referral to a referee to recommend final discipline. The court relied on these authorities in its October 13, 2023 interim suspension order and again frames its final action within this statutory‑regulatory scheme.
• Matter of Ortega, 2023 NY Slip Op 75004(U): The Second Department’s prior interim order in this very matter, holding that the Tax Law § 1802 conviction constitutes a “serious crime” warranting immediate suspension. That earlier determination set the procedural posture for the present final disciplinary decision.
• Matter of Ortega, 170 AD3d 60 (2d Dept 2019): The court’s prior public censure of Ortega, imposed reciprocally after the Second Circuit reprimanded and barred him absent readmission or leave. The earlier misconduct—failure to properly withdraw from a criminal appeal and failure to respond or comply with multiple federal court orders—was considered here as aggravation in fashioning the sanction.
• 22 NYCRR 1240.15 and 22 NYCRR 1240.16: Rules governing conduct of suspended attorneys and reinstatement applications. The court conditions reinstatement on compliance with these provisions and sets a “no earlier than” filing date for any reinstatement application.
• Tax Law § 1802: Defines criminal tax fraud in the fifth degree, under which Ortega pleaded guilty based on his admitted failure to file a 2020 personal income tax return.

Although the opinion cites few external cases beyond Ortega’s own disciplinary history, the legal architecture—serious‑crime procedures and reinstatement rules—anchored the court’s analysis. The decision is consistent with the established practice in New York attorney discipline to treat crimes involving fraud or dishonesty as “serious” for interim suspension purposes and to then calibrate final discipline through a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances review.

Legal Reasoning

1) Serious crime triggers, then sanction phase: Following a “serious crime” conviction, the process bifurcates: immediate suspension preserves public confidence and protects clients pending a sanction hearing. Consistent with Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(ii), the court initially suspended Ortega and referred the matter to a Special Referee.

2) Burden at the hearing: The Special Referee concluded Ortega “had not demonstrated why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made.” This reflects the procedural posture: after a serious crime conviction, the focus is not on guilt (which is established) but on what discipline is appropriate, and the respondent bears the burden to present persuasive mitigation.

3) Mitigation and aggravation weighed: The court expressly considered Ortega’s “profound remorse,” financial stressors, immediate full restitution, and strong character evidence. Counterbalancing these were the nature of the offense (tax fraud grounded in non‑filing amidst tax liabilities over multiple years as reported by prosecutors) and Ortega’s prior disciplinary record (2019 public censure for conduct reflecting disregard of court obligations). The court’s “totality of the circumstances” approach led to a six‑month suspension as proportionate.

4) Prospective (not retroactive) suspension: Ortega requested either public censure or, alternatively, a suspension of no more than six months “retroactive to include some of the time served during the interim suspension.” The court did not grant retroactive credit; the six‑month suspension commences October 24, 2025. This choice underscores that time spent under interim suspension does not automatically offset a final suspension and that the court retains broad discretion to impose a prospective term notwithstanding earlier interim relief.

5) Compliance and reinstatement conditions: The court details standard conditions applicable to suspended attorneys under 22 NYCRR 1240.15, including no practice of law or holding out as an attorney, and the return of any secure courthouse pass. For reinstatement (22 NYCRR 1240.16), Ortega must prove non‑practice and full compliance during suspension and may not apply before March 25, 2026.

Impact and Practical Implications

• Affirmation of “serious crime” consequences for misdemeanor tax offenses: Even a class A misdemeanor under Tax Law § 1802 is treated as a serious crime for disciplinary purposes, triggering immediate suspension and supporting a meaningful final suspension. Attorneys should not assume that misdemeanor status or restitution will avert significant professional sanctions.
• No automatic credit for interim suspension: The court’s decision to begin the six‑month suspension prospectively, despite an earlier interim suspension and a request for retroactivity, highlights that interim suspension time is not inherently credited. Counsel should address retroactivity explicitly and recognize the court’s discretion to deny it.
• Prior discipline weighs heavily: Ortega’s past public censure, especially for failures to heed court directives, amplified the sanction despite present remorse and strong character support. A history of noncompliance with court orders is particularly aggravating where the new misconduct also involves dishonesty or disregard for legal obligations (tax filing).
• Mitigation must be robust and specific: Financial difficulties and family obligations, while considered, will rarely offset misconduct involving fraud or tax non‑compliance absent exceptional circumstances. Immediate restitution is helpful but not dispositive.
• Clear compliance roadmap: The opinion’s detailed injunctions reflect the rigorous expectations imposed on suspended attorneys: cease all forms of legal practice, avoid legal advice, and return any secure pass. Noncompliance risks further discipline and can impede reinstatement.