Case Detail
CitationIn re Soares, 947 N.Y.S.2d 233 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
CrimeNon-violent, other
Pros. First NameP. David
Pros. Last NameSoares
Trial Year2008
BodyAppeals court
OpinionThe New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that censure was an appropriate sanction for a district attorney's misconduct. "We conclude that respondent has violated rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0)—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Inasmuch as Judge Herrick appointed a special district attorney and granted that prosecutor leave to re-present the dismissed indictment, we conclude that respondent's statement that Judge Herrick's determination constituted a 'get-out-of-jail-free card for every criminal defendant in New York State' was objectively false. For the same reasons, we conclude that his statement that Judge Herrick created a 'dangerous loophole' was reckless and misleading. . . .We have considered, in determining an appropriate sanction, respondent's submissions in mitigation, including his expression of remorse and his representation to this Court that he has instituted procedures in his office for review of statements prior to their release to the public. We have also considered, however, respondent's disciplinary history, which includes two letters of admonition for making improper and prejudicial public statements regarding pending criminal matters. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured."
Determination Year2012
Misconduct TypeP
C/S EffectDismissal
Pros. Misc. ReportedUKN
Sanction TypeOther
Web link