Matter of Pantiliat

2025 NY Slip Op 4791 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · August 27, 2025 · No. 2024-03677

Summary

This Appellate Division, Second Department order addresses reciprocal attorney discipline against respondent Eddie A. Pantiliat following a public reprimand by the Supreme Court of Arizona. The underlying misconduct involved improper communications with unrepresented opposing parties, attempting to secure a knowingly inaccurate affidavit, and failing to withdraw despite a significant conflict of interest. After reviewing the respondent's admissions and mitigating factors, the court imposed reciprocal discipline in the form of public censure pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.; MARK C. DILLON; COLLEEN D. DUFFY; BETSY BARROS; DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
August 27, 2025
Docket number
2024-03677
Procedural posture
Reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under 22 NYCRR 1240.13 following Arizona discipline.
Precedential value
published
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedureappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

professional responsibilitydisciplinary law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the New York Appellate Division should impose a public censure on the respondent in reciprocal discipline proceedings.
  2. Whether the sanction imposed by the foreign jurisdiction (Arizona) should be given controlling weight in New York reciprocal discipline.
  3. Whether the respondent’s failure to report the Arizona discipline warrants additional sanction.

Holdings

  1. The court orders that the respondent be publicly censured under 22 NYCRR 1240.13.
  2. When the foreign sanction is not inconsistent with New York sanctions for similar misconduct, the New York court should impose the same sanction.

Factual background

Eddie A. Pantiliat, an attorney, was publicly reprimanded by the Arizona Supreme Court for violations of the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct. He failed to report that discipline to the New York courts. The Grievance Committee sought reciprocal discipline in New York under 22 NYCRR 1240.13.

Procedural history

The respondent was publicly reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Arizona. The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, issued an order to show cause and, after a hearing, considered whether to impose reciprocal discipline. The court considered the Arizona sanction and the respondent's mitigation.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…