Theodore M. Cooperstein (2024)

in any instance on application of a party or on the court ’s or a single justice ’ s motion and may court or a single justice thereof may suspend the requirements or provisions of any of these rules Rule 1 (“In the interest of expediting a decision, or for other good cause shown, the supreme 37(12)(e) and Rule 37(2)(g), remanded to the Committee for issuance of a public censure. See misconduc t warranted substantially different discipline, and, waiving the provisions of Rule The Court reviewed the matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37(12), found that the

Appellate Division First Department. 2023 admonition from the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court of New York Supreme Court of Mississippi Committee on Profession al Responsibility, and a December 5, Southern District of Mississippi Northern Division, an August 1, 2023 private reprimand of the order of notice, a July 7, 2022 sanction order from the United States District Court for the ADO’s initial filing, the Supreme Court’s orders, Attorney Cooperstein’s Response to the Court’ s Involving Dishonesty. The Committee reviewed the record in the matter, which included the of Professional Condu ct 3.3 (a)(1), Candor Towards the Tribunal, and 8.4(c), Misconduct Attorney Cooperstein’s misconduct represented three violations of New Hampshire Rule s different discipline in New Hampshire. another jurisdiction and the ADO’s recommendation that the misconduct warranted substantially Supreme Court on the notification by the Attorney Discipline Office (ADO) of discipline in April 16, 2024 remand of this matter for issuance of a public censure. The matter was before the On June 18, 2024, the Professional Conduct Committee voted on the Supreme Court’s

In Case No. LD - 2023 - 00014, In The Matter of Theodore M. Cooperstein, Esquire

*non - lawyer member

*Peter J. Kiriakoutsos *Everett S. Grass Trudy Renfors, Admin. Asst. Richard C. Gagliuso, Esq. Eric R. Wilson, Esq. *Ronald K. Ace Mitchell M. Simon, Esq. Caroline K. Leonard, Esq., Vice Chair. Robin D. Melone, Esq. *Kathleen M. Ames, Vice Chair Karyl R. Martin, Esq. Stephanie C. Hausman, Esq., Chair Derek Lick, Esq.

p. 2 repr esentation to a tribunal – was sufficiently serious to warrant discipline greater than a and agreed with the ADO that Attorney Cooperstein’s misconduct – three instances of a false two factors set forth in Rule 37(12)(d) was present. The Court th us focused on the third factor Attorney Cooperstein to the Court’s order of notice, the Court concluded that neither of the first Committee on Professional Responsibility, the ADO’s correspondence, and the response of After having reviewed the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi

subs tantially different discipline in New Hampshire. discipline by the Court would result in grave injustice; or (3) the misconduct established warrants constitute a deprivation of due process; (2) the imposition of the same or substantially similar the jurisdiction imposing discipline was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to the face of the record from which the discipline is predicated, that: (1) the procedure followed by Court unless the respondent attorney or the ADO demonstrates, or the Court finds, based upon Supreme Court Rule 37(12)(d) provides for the imposition of recipr ocal discipline by the misconduct. New York Appellate Division First Department, which formally admonished him for the of the disciplinary determination of the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court of terms, a reprimand). In support of his position, Attorney Cooperstein submitted a certified copy contended that the Court should impose substantially similar discipline (in New Hampshire Responsibility. On January 30, 2024, Attorney Cooperstein filed a response in which he similar to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi Committee on Professional writing of his position as to whether the Court should impose discipline identical or substantially Court issued an order of notice giving Attorney Cooperstein an opportunity to advise the Court in In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37(12), which governs reciprocal discipline, the misconduct for one year. entire suspension stayed on the condition that Attorney Cooperstein engage in no further should impose a six - month suspension from the practice of law in New Hampshire, wi th the different discipline in New Hampshire. In particular, the ADO asserted that the Supreme Court the filing, t he ADO contended t h at Attorney Cooperstein’s misconduct warrants substantially that required unvaccinated court participants to wear a mask. In the correspondence transmitting t hose m i srepresentations, the fede ral court in Mississippi had a standing COVID - mitigation order vaccination status to a federal judge in Mississ ippi during the summer of 2021. At the time of Cooperstein following his self - report that he had on three occasions m isrepresented his Committee on Professional Responsibility, which privately reprimanded Attorney Theodore M. certified copy of the August 1, 2023 opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Mississippi On September 25, 2023, the ADO filed with the New H ampshire Supreme Court a incorporating the Court’s findings and conclusions. order proceedings in accordance wit h that direction.”). The Committee issues this public censure

Page 2 p. 3 John P. Sneed, Esq. (via email) Jeffrey C. Spear, Esq. (via email) cc: Mark P. Cornell, Esq. (via email)

determined that a public censure was appropriate discipline. Considering the nature and ex tent of Attorney Cooperstein’s misconduct, the Court Office for his lack of candor and poor judgment, and his cooperation with the ADO. apology to the federal court in Mississippi and to his colleagues in the United States Attorney’s absence of a selfish motive, his self - report of the misconduct, his expression of regret and Cooperstein’s acknowledgement of misconduct, the absence of a prior disciplinary record, the factors, many of which were noted in the New York disciplinary determination, include Attorney Cooperstein and by the ADO that a suspension was not warranted in this cas e. Those mitigating

Page 3