Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

In the Matter of Monaghan

Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Department
295 A.D.2d 38, 743 N.Y.S.2d 519 (2002)


Monaghan (defendant) represented Patricia Parsons at depositions conducted by the United States Department of Labor (the department). Gail Perry, a black woman, conducted the depositions on the department’s behalf. Monaghan taunted Perry continuously, claiming that she mispronounced words during the depositions. Based on this conduct, the department moved in May 1996 to request sanctions against Monaghan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). At a June 1996 hearing, Monaghan continued his attempts to justify his conduct despite warnings from the judge that he would be referred to the disciplinary committee. After he was ordered to pay a $500 fine, Monaghan wrote an apology letter to Monaghan, admitting that his actions were inappropriate. In January 2001, Monaghan conceded by written stipulation that his conduct violated New York Code of Professional Responsibility DRs 1-102(a)(5)-(6), which prohibits an attorney from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and unlawfully discriminating in the practice of law on the basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation. Monaghan acknowledged that public censure would be an appropriate sanction for his conduct. In a March 2001 order, the chair of the SDNY Committee on Grievances (plaintiff) directed Monaghan’s public censure for his race-based discrimination against Perry. Monaghan appealed to the New York Supreme Court, contending that there was insufficient proof to establish misconduct. Following a hearing, a Special Referee concluded that Monaghan’s conduct was more likely motivated by gender rather than race, and so found insufficient evidence to support the grievance committee’s order. Monaghan moved to confirm the Referee’s report.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 496,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial