PER CURIAM — Respondent Gordon R. Caplan was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on February 3, 1992, under the name Gordon Rubin Caplan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Department. On May 21, 2019, respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud in violation of 18 USC §1349 (see 18 USC §§1341 and 1346), a felony. On October 3, 2019, respondent was sentenced to one month in prison, one year of supervised release, 250 hours of community service and ordered to pay a fine of $50,000. Respondent’s conviction stemmed from his involvement in the widely publicized college admissions bribery and cheating scandal centered on college admissions consultant William “Rick” Singer who helped parents bribe coaches and test administrators so their children had a better chance of getting into prominent schools. Specifically, in or about 2018, respondent agreed to pay Singer $75,000 (via wire transfer and the mail) to participate in the college entrance exam cheating scheme. To accomplish this, he flew to Los Angeles, with his daughter, to meet with a psychologist recommended by Singer to obtain medical documentation required to receive extended time on the ACT exam for which she received approval; and he changed his daughter’s testing location to a test center in West Hollywood, California so that Singer’s associates could proctor her exam, correct her answers to obtain the desired score, and mail the corrected exam to the ACT grading center in Iowa. This resulted in his daughter receiving a score of 32 out of a possible 36 on her corrected exam. The Attorney Grievance Committee (Committee) now seeks an order determining that respondent’s conviction for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud is a “serious crime” as defined by Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d); immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) §1240.12(c)(2)(ii); and directing respondent to show cause before a referee appointed by this Court, within 90 days of his sentencing, or release from prison, if applicable, why a final order of censure, suspension or disbarment should not be made pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(g) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(i) and (iv). Respondent joins in the Committee’s request for an order deeming his conviction a “serious crime.” He does not oppose the imposition of an interim suspension, and, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90(4)(h) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(iii), he requests a hearing for the purpose of presenting mitigating evidence relevant to sanction. Judiciary Law §90(4)(d) defines a “serious crime” in pertinent part as follows:
“any criminal offense denominated a felony under the laws of any state, district or territory or of the United States which does not constitute a felony under the laws of this state…”
