Case 1:13-cr-00269-DLI Document 255 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 5066

DORSEY'"
DO Fl SEY & W 111 TN E Y UJ'

JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN
(212) 415-9234

colangelo.joshua@dorsey.com

December 23, 2016

VIA ECF
Honorable Dora L. Irizarry
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re:

United States v. John Sampson, CR. No. 13-269 (DLI)

Dear Chief Judge Irizarry:

We represent John Sampson in the above-referenced matter and write in response to
the government's letter of December 5, 2016 ("Letter"). The government seeks a sentence of
87 months, which is at the highest point of the Guidelines range it calculates (incorrectly, as
addressed in earlier briefing and the Presentence Report ("PSR")). In the Letter, the
government discusses a March 2016 family court appearance by Mr. Sampson to argue for the
87-month sentence, which is 50 months longer than that recommended in the PSR, 27 months
longer than that imposed on Dean Skelos, who the government contended caused more harm
than Mr. Sampson, and at least 75 months longer than that sought by Mr. Sampson. 1
Mr. Sampson wishes to bring to the Court's attention the following facts regarding the
March 2016 family court appearance referred to in the Letter. By way of background, Mr.
Sampson had been retained on a per diem basis to make court appearances in the relevant
matter. 2 Mr. Sampson had appeared in court for a November 16, 2015 appearance, but had not
been asked to appear on the following court dates in the case, which were on December 22,
2015 and March 9, 2016.
Shortly before March 22, 2016, the client in the family court matter called Mr. Sampson
and informed him that a conference was scheduled for March 22. Mr. Sampson informed the
client that he had been suspended from the practice of law. The client told Mr. Sampson that he
could not obtain another attorney due to a lack of resources and that he and his adversary had
resolved the issues they were litigating. Mr. Sampson agreed to appear in court with the intent
to withdraw in an attempt to comply with the rules of the Appellate Division, First Department.
See 22 NYCRR 603.13(d)(2) ("In the event the client does not obtain substitute counsel
before the effective date of the disbarment or suspension or resignation, it shall be the
1

The Skelos matter was addressed in the Reply Sentencing Memorandum of John Sampson (at 5-6).

The facts regarding this incident as referenced herein are set forth in the accompanying declaration of
John L. Sampson.

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP WWW.DORSEY.COM T 212.415.9200 F 212.953.7201

51 WEST 52ND STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019-6119
4817-3881-9902\l

USA

CANADA

EUROPE

ASIA-PACIFIC

Case 1:13-cr-00269-DLI Document 255 Filed 12/23/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 5067

DORSEY'"
Honorable Dora L. Irizarry
December 23, 2016
Page 2

responsibility of the disbarred or suspended or resigned attorney to move in the court in which
the action is pending ... for leave to withdraw from the action .... ")
In court on March 22, Mr. Sampson told the court that he was withdrawing. He also
briefly remarked that his client had indicated that the case could be resolved and that a brief
adjournment might allow the parties to reach an agreement. See Letter, Ex. 3 at 13. Mr.
Sampson did not, it is conceded, state that he was withdrawing because he had been
suspended; this was due to his embarrassment about that fact. Mr. Sampson did not request or
receive any fee for his appearance on March 22.
Clearly, Mr. Sampson did not act as he should have when he failed to inform the court
and counsel for the parties that he had been suspended. Ultimately, though, it should be
recognized that Mr. Sampson did not ask for or receive a fee for the court appearance, that he
did inform the court that he was withdrawing from the case, and that he advocated only for a
brief adjournment to allow the parties to resolve the matter. Thus, Mr. Sampson's actions were
not driven by any pecuniary or pernicious motive and were not part of any broad scheme to
engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Moreover, Mr. Sampson has already received the
ultimate professional penalty of disbarment for his actions. For all of these reasons, the
government's proposed sentence - which is 50 months longer than that the PSR recommends cannot be justified by reference to the March 22 court appearance.
Resp

48 l 7-3881-9902\l

,t

t~

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

Case 1:13-cr-00269-DLI Document 255-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 5068

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------)(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
- against JOHN SAMPSON,

CR. No. 13-269 (DLI)

Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------)(
DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT JOHN L. SAMPSON
I, John L. Sampson, hereby declare, under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1746, that the following is true and correct:

1.

I was retained on a per diem basis to make court appearances in the family court

matter referred to in the government's letter of December 5, 2016. I had appeared in court for a
November 16, 2015 conference in that matter, but had not been asked to appear on the following
court dates in the case, which were on December 22, 2015 and March 9, 2016.
2.

Shortly before March 22, 2016, the client in the family court matter called me and

informed me that a court conference was scheduled for March 22. I informed the client that I
had been suspended from the practice of law. The client told me that he could not obtain another
attorney for the conference due to a lack of resources and that he and his adversary had resolved
the issues they were litigating.
3.

I agreed to appear in court on March 22, 2016. It was my intent to withdraw to

comply with the relevant rules of the Appellate Division, First Department.
4.

In court on March 22, 2016, I stated that I was withdrawing. I also briefly stated

that my client had indicated that the case could be resolved and suggested that a brief

Case 1:13-cr-00269-DLI Document 255-1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 5069

adjournment might allow the parties to reach an agreement. I did not say that I was withdrawing
because of having been suspended, due to my great embarrassment about being suspended.
5.

I did not request or receive any fee for my appearance on March 22, 2016.

Executed on this 19th day of December, 2016 at New York, New York.

Jo~m;,o~=: