## Facts

- Steven L. Holley, a New York attorney and litigation partner at a large firm, represented a bank in federal litigation.
- Holley obtained court documents that had been filed under seal in the federal matter.
- He transmitted the sealed materials to a legal affairs editor at *Business Week*, which published an article based on those materials.
- After the disclosure was discovered, the federal court conducted an evidentiary hearing; Holley later also testified in a disciplinary deposition.
- In those proceedings, Holley denied that the editor had told him the documents were sealed when he sent them; those denials were found to be false.
- Disciplinary authorities charged Holley with professional misconduct; earlier proceedings dismissed the charges, but an appellate court reinstated and sustained one charge for conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law (former DR 1-102(A)(8), now DR 1-102(A)(7)).
- The matter was remanded solely to determine sanction; a referee and hearing panel recommended discipline short of suspension.
- Holley presented substantial character evidence, including testimony supporting his competence and reputation for truthfulness, and he had no prior disciplinary history.

## Issues

1. What disciplinary sanction is appropriate where an attorney disclosed sealed court documents to the press and later made false statements in judicial and disciplinary proceedings about knowledge of the sealed status?
2. Whether mitigation (no prior discipline, strong character evidence, and claimed lack of concrete injury) warrants a sanction less than public censure.
3. Whether potential collateral consequences (including effects on practice in other jurisdictions) justify reducing the sanction.

## Decision

- The court imposed public censure.
- It found the misconduct serious because it both compromised a sealing order and involved dishonesty in formal proceedings.
- It rejected arguments that the sanction rested on a new or heightened professional standard, characterizing the obligation to respect sealing orders and to be truthful as basic professional requirements.
- It held that mitigation and asserted absence of tangible harm did not outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process and deter similar misconduct.
- It declined to reduce the sanction based on possible reciprocal or collateral consequences in other jurisdictions.

## Legal Principles

- Disclosing sealed court materials and then making false statements to a court or disciplinary authorities about knowledge of the sealing order constitutes conduct adversely reflecting on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law under former DR 1-102(A)(8) (now DR 1-102(A)(7)).
- Candor in judicial and disciplinary proceedings is a core component of fitness to practice; dishonesty in those settings warrants public discipline even for an otherwise reputable attorney.
- Disciplinary sanctions may be imposed to protect the integrity of the legal system and deter misconduct, even absent proof of concrete harm to parties.
- Strong character evidence and a clean disciplinary record are mitigating factors but do not require a private sanction where the misconduct directly implicates court authority and attorney truthfulness.

## Conclusion

The court publicly censured Holley, concluding that violating a sealing order and then making false statements in formal proceedings was serious misconduct reflecting adversely on fitness to practice law, and that mitigation and claimed lack of tangible injury did not justify a lesser, nonpublic sanction.


In re Holley, 285 A.D.2d 216, 729 N.Y.S.2d 128 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2001)