## Facts

- Edward D. Fagan, a New York attorney admitted in 1988, represented plaintiffs in a federal action seeking billions of dollars for alleged Holocaust-looted art claims.
- The federal court found the complaint asserted no valid basis for federal jurisdiction and was an attempted end run around relief already obtained through a prior settlement involving a key defendant.
- The federal court found the named plaintiff entity “AHVRAM” did not exist.
- The federal court found the action frivolous, brought in bad faith, and in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, and imposed sanctions on Fagan personally.
- Fagan did not pay the sanctions judgment.
- Disciplinary charges were brought alleging, among other misconduct, that Fagan acquired a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the litigation, engaged in dishonesty and misrepresentation, and acted prejudicially to the administration of justice.
- In the disciplinary proceedings, the court gave collateral-estoppel effect to the federal court’s factual findings, and a hearing proceeded solely on sanction.
- The Hearing Panel found false submissions and knowing misrepresentations and recommended disbarment; it also found aggravation based on Fagan’s disruptive, dilatory conduct and lack of remorse.

## Issues

1. Whether the Hearing Panel’s report should be confirmed and what sanction was warranted for Fagan’s misconduct.
2. Whether Fagan’s cross-motion to compel production of the disciplinary record and his motion to disqualify the Hearing Panel should be granted.

## Decision

- The court granted the disciplinary committee’s motion to confirm the Hearing Panel’s report.
- The court ordered that Fagan be disbarred from the practice of law in New York.
- The court denied Fagan’s cross-motion to compel production of the record.
- The court denied Fagan’s motion seeking, among other relief, disqualification of the Hearing Panel.

## Legal Principles

- Disbarment is appropriate where an attorney makes deliberate misrepresentations to a court and engages in dishonest conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
- Repeated violations of court rulings and procedures, coupled with failure to satisfy a sanctions judgment, support the most severe professional discipline.
- Knowingly pursuing litigation on behalf of a non-existent entity and seeking relief already obtained through settlement demonstrates bad faith and abuse of the judicial process.
- Improper acquisition of a proprietary interest in the subject matter of litigation, including purchasing interests for the purpose of bringing suit (champerty), constitutes serious professional misconduct.
- Aggravating factors in sanction selection include lack of contrition and obstructive conduct during disciplinary proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed the Hearing Panel’s findings and imposed disbarment because Fagan knowingly pursued frivolous, bad-faith litigation using a non-existent plaintiff, made misrepresentations to the court, engaged in champertous conduct, disregarded court rulings, and failed to pay Rule 11 sanctions, and his conduct during the disciplinary process showed no mitigation warranting a lesser sanction.


In re Fagan, 58 A.D.3d 260, 869 N.Y.S.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2008)