- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
- Case
- Matter of Figueroa
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03357
Background
Respondent Daniel Figueroa III was admitted to practice in 2008 and maintained a business address in Rensselaer County. In July and August 2024, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) received two separate complaints of professional misconduct against Figueroa. When Figueroa failed to respond to either complaint upon AGC’s directives, he was directed to appear for an examination under oath and to produce various records. Although Figueroa appeared for the examination, he failed to provide the requested documents, and the examination was adjourned. Despite being granted additional time, Figueroa failed to substantively respond to AGC’s requests. AGC moved for interim suspension, and when Figueroa again failed to respond, the Third Department suspended him. After Figueroa failed to respond to further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the suspension, AGC moved for disbarment. Figueroa did not respond to the disbarment motion.
Holding
The Appellate Division granted AGC’s motion and disbarred Figueroa. Under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters section 1240.9(b), a respondent who has been suspended for failing to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation and who continues to fail to cooperate for six months following the suspension may be disbarred. The Court found that Figueroa’s persistent refusal to engage with AGC’s investigation, from the initial complaints through the interim suspension and the disbarment motion, demonstrated a complete disregard for his professional obligations and the disciplinary process. His failure to respond to the disbarment motion precluded any opposition to the relief sought.
Takeaways
Complete failure to cooperate with attorney disciplinary investigations will result in escalating consequences, from interim suspension to disbarment. Under the Third Department’s rules, an attorney who is suspended for non-cooperation and continues to fail to engage with the investigation for six months faces automatic disbarment proceedings. The disciplinary system requires meaningful participation by the respondent attorney, and a pattern of non-responsiveness to complaints, directives, and motions will be treated as sufficient grounds for the most severe sanction available.
Why It Matters
This case serves as a stark warning to attorneys who receive complaints or inquiries from attorney grievance committees. Ignoring the disciplinary process does not make it go away—it accelerates it. The path from initial complaint to disbarment can be remarkably swift when the respondent refuses to participate. Attorneys who receive communications from AGC must respond promptly and substantively, even if they believe the underlying complaints are unfounded. Failure to engage with the process, rather than the substance of the underlying complaints, becomes the primary basis for the most severe disciplinary sanction.