## Facts

- Robert L. Rimberg, a New York attorney, pleaded guilty in federal court to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960(a).
- The offense conduct involved handling a large cash transaction: a South American investor sought to invest $1 million in a film project, with cash delivered to Rimberg’s law office, deposited into a client account, and wired onward to specified accounts.
- Rimberg proceeded despite misgivings about the transaction’s propriety and received a $25,000 fee for his role.
- Federal authorities initially pursued money-laundering charges, but Rimberg ultimately pleaded to the lesser § 1960(a) offense after the government acknowledged it could not show he knew the funds were tied to narcotics.
- Following the felony conviction, the court previously imposed an interim suspension pending final disciplinary action.
- A Special Referee conducted a mitigation hearing and found misconduct, identifying greed as a motivating factor while also finding mitigation, including remorse, acceptance of responsibility, no prior discipline, favorable character evidence, and no direct harm to existing clients.

## Issues

1. Whether Rimberg’s federal felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1960(a) constitutes a “serious crime” for New York attorney discipline purposes.
2. What final sanction is appropriate considering the seriousness of the conduct, aggravation, mitigation, and comparable disciplinary outcomes.

## Decision

- The court granted the Grievance Committee’s motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report.
- The court determined the federal felony conviction constituted a “serious crime” warranting final discipline.
- Balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law, effective nunc pro tunc to the earlier interim suspension date, thereby crediting time already served.

## Legal Principles

- A federal felony that falls within New York’s statutory definition of a “serious crime” triggers attorney discipline and supports substantial sanctions.
- Disciplinary sanctions serve to protect the public, preserve the integrity of the bar, and deter misconduct, rather than to punish.
- In selecting a sanction, the court weighs aggravating factors (including the scale of the misconduct and improper financial handling through attorney accounts) against mitigation (such as remorse, lack of prior discipline, strong character evidence, and absence of client harm).
- Confirmation of a Special Referee’s report is appropriate where the findings, including credibility-based mitigation and aggravation determinations, are supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court treated the attorney’s federal felony for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business as a “serious crime,” confirmed the referee’s findings, and imposed a two-year suspension (with credit from the interim suspension) because the conduct involved a significant improper funds-transfer scheme, but substantial mitigation made disbarment unnecessary.


Matter of Rimberg, 184 A.D.3d 171, 124 N.Y.S.3d 75 (App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2020)