Waiver of MPRE Requirement in Attorney Reinstatement: Insights from In the Matter of Lori Jo Sklar

Introduction

In the Matter of Lori Jo Sklar, a Suspended Attorney (130 N.Y.S.3d 859) is a significant case adjudicated by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on September 3, 2020. This case centers around Lori Jo Sklar, an attorney originally admitted to practice in New York in 1994, who faced suspension in California for professional misconduct. The central issue pertains to her petition for reinstatement in New York and the concomitant request to resign, specifically seeking a waiver of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) requirement typically mandated for such reinstatements.

Summary of the Judgment

Lori Jo Sklar, after being suspended in California for misleading conduct related to a class action fee application and disregarding court orders, sought reinstatement in New York. Initially suspended for three months, her delay in applying for reinstatement triggered higher procedural requirements, including the necessity to pass the MPRE. Sklar petitioned for a waiver of this requirement, arguing that her simultaneous resignation justified the exemption. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department opposed her motion. After thorough consideration, the court granted her motion, reinstating her in the state of New York and accepting her resignation, effectively waiving the MPRE requirement in this context.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several prior cases to inform its decision, notably:

Matter of Sklar on Discipline (2017): Addressed Sklar's initial suspension in California.
Matter of Jing Tan (2018): Discussed procedural requirements for attorneys suspended for less than six months.
Matter of Nenninger (2020): Set standards for the MPRE requirement in higher suspension remediation.
Matter of Cooper (2015): Emphasized the importance of ethical conduct in serious disciplinary cases.
Matter of D'Alessandro (2019) and Matter of Alimanova (2017): Dealt with MPRE waivers for attorneys seeking reinstatement from registration delinquencies.

These precedents collectively illustrate the court's cautious approach towards waiving fundamental requirements like the MPRE, especially in cases involving significant misconduct.

Legal Reasoning

The court undertook a meticulous examination of whether Sklar's circumstances warranted a waiver of the MPRE requirement. The primary factors included:

Nature of Misconduct: Sklar's suspension stemmed from severe professional misconduct in California, distinguishing her case from registration delinquencies.
Simultaneous Resignation: While this factor was considered, the court noted that in cases of serious misconduct, resignation alone may not suffice for a waiver.
Compliance with Previous Orders: Sklar had passed the MPRE in California and engaged in continuing legal education (CLE) focused on professionalism and ethics.
Character and Fitness: Her clean disciplinary history beyond the California suspension and reinstatements in other jurisdictions supported her fitness for reinstatement.

Balancing these elements, the court determined that the totality of Sklar's efforts to remediate her professional conduct justified the waiver of the MPRE requirement in her specific situation.

Impact

This judgment establishes a nuanced precedent where the MPRE requirement may be waived under particular circumstances, even in cases of serious misconduct. It highlights that the courts consider the entirety of an attorney's remedial actions and current standing across jurisdictions when deliberating such waivers. This case may influence future petitions for reinstatement, encouraging attorneys to demonstrate comprehensive rehabilitation and ethical commitment to favorably influence discretionary requirements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

MPRE (Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination): A standardized test assessing an attorney's knowledge and understanding of professional conduct standards.
Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC): A body responsible for investigating and deciding on complaints against attorneys regarding professional misconduct.
Reinstatement: The process by which a suspended attorney regains the privilege to practice law after fulfilling suspension conditions.
Per Curiam: A court opinion delivered in the name of the Court rather than specific judges, indicating a unanimous decision.

By addressing these terms, stakeholders can better comprehend the procedural and substantive aspects of attorney disciplinary actions and reinstatements.

Conclusion

The case of In the Matter of Lori Jo Sklar underscores the court's willingness to exercise discretion in waiving standard requirements like the MPRE in the context of attorney reinstatement, provided there is sufficient evidence of rehabilitation and ethical commitment. This decision reinforces the principle that while regulatory standards are paramount, flexibility exists to account for individual circumstances, thereby balancing regulatory rigor with equitable considerations. The judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving attorney misconduct and the pathways available for reinstatement.