The South Carolina Supreme Court publicly reprimanded a lawyer who accepted title-policy fees but failed to issue the policy, respond to the client, or preserve the file.
The Second Department publicly censured a lawyer who secretly told bankruptcy counsel not to answer a judge’s call and rejected his challenge to stipulated reciprocal discipline.
The Third Department held that New York’s narrower lawyer-client sexual-relations rule requires proof of coercion, intimidation, or undue influence, while imposing reciprocal discipline for conflict and withdrawal violations.
The First Department publicly censured a high-volume trademark lawyer who failed to verify client signatures and allowed unauthorized third parties to file using his email identity.
The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and suspended Brown for one year. The sanction reflected both the client-service violations and repeated failure to cooperate with the disciplinary system, considered alongside his prior discipline. Brown must comply with the rule governing suspended lawyers, pay disciplinary costs, and complete Ethics School within one year after reinstatement.
The Supreme Court accepted discipline by consent and imposed an eighteen-month definite suspension, retroactive to Gilchrist’s July 29, 2022 interim suspension. The court stressed the seriousness of financial dishonesty, misrepresentations, and her failure to self-report the indictment. Cooperation, repayment, and other mitigation did not reduce the sanction below the agreed range. She must also pay the investigation and prosecution costs.
The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and publicly reprimanded Compton. It found violations of the professional rules governing competence, diligence, communication, and related responsibilities. The court also required payment of disciplinary costs, an assessment through Lawyers Helping Lawyers with compliance with resulting recommendations, and completion of Ethics School within one year.
The Supreme Court accepted the agreement and imposed a definite six-month suspension. It treated the pattern and Owen’s disciplinary history as important aggravating considerations, while also considering the mitigating material submitted with the agreement. Owen must comply with the rule governing suspended lawyers, pay disciplinary costs, and complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program Ethics School within one year.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed dismissal after a trial court rejected opposition briefs for single spacing without explaining the defect.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that reconsideration does not extend the 30-day deadline to appeal a collateral order and concluded that counsel’s withdrawal order was not collateral in any event.
The Court of Appeals held that Rule 11 expressly permits a trial court to act on its own initiative and that courts also possess inherent authority to protect the integrity of proceedings. Reviewing the sanction decision de novo, the panel agreed that the complaint misrepresented the contract and that the discrepancy was material to the requested relief. The show-cause process supplied notice and an opportunity to re
The Alaska Supreme Court held that Civil Rule 60(a) permitted a trial court to correct custody findings drafted by counsel that materially departed from the court’s oral ruling.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a DHC finding that attorney Mark Cummings lied to Bar investigators about compensating a paralegal, but vacated three other misconduct findings—on failure to file 1099s (no willfulness finding by the DHC), a courtroom recording device (no evidence of an actual misrepresentation), and a residency misrepresentation (prior out-of-court statement inadmissible under Rules 804(b)(5) and 803(24) because the declarant testified live at the hearing). The case was remanded for the DHC to reconsider appropriate discipline based only on the violations that survived review.
The Second Department sanctioned a pro se litigant for filing an appellate brief with fabricated AI-generated legal citations, holding that unverified use of generative AI constitutes frivolous conduct.
Appellate Division imposes reciprocal discipline for New Jersey conflict of interest and prohibited business transaction violations, finding corresponding misconduct under New York rules.
Appellate Division grants immediate interim suspension of attorney based on misconduct posing immediate threat to public interest pending completion of disciplinary proceedings.
Appellate Division disbars attorney for persistent failure to cooperate with disciplinary investigation, including failure to respond to complaints, produce documents, and oppose disbarment motion.
Appellate Division denies reinstatement to attorney suspended for unauthorized use of law firm escrow funds, finding failure to demonstrate character, fitness, and public interest.
Appellate Division imposes reciprocal discipline for three separate Colorado disciplinary actions spanning two decades, including suspension, reprimand, and further suspension for multiple rule violations.
Appellate Division imposes reciprocal discipline on attorney suspended in New Jersey for negligent misappropriation of client funds, finding no applicable defense to reciprocal proceedings.
Second Department affirms dismissal of Judiciary Law Section 487 claim against successor attorney, holding complaint failed to plead proximate causation between alleged deceit and plaintiff’s injury.
Second Department sustains all four charges against second law firm partner for same escrow account misappropriation and record-keeping failures as companion case Matter of Silverman.
Second Department sustains all four charges of attorney misconduct for escrow account misappropriation and record-keeping failures involving shortages up to $30,366.
Second Department partially modifies dismissal order in escrow dispute, preserving breach of contract and conversion claims against attorney who refused to return funds held since 2011.