- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department
- Case
- Matter of Cimino
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03356
Background
Respondent John A. Cimino was admitted to practice in New York in 1981 and was also admitted in Washington and Colorado, where he maintains his primary practice. Between 2000 and 2021, Cimino was publicly disciplined by the Supreme Court of Colorado on three separate occasions. In 2000, he received a thirty-day suspension for entering into a prohibited business transaction with a corporation while representing it. In 2007, he received a public reprimand for failing to act with reasonable diligence in two client matters. In 2021, he was suspended for six months, partially stayed with conditions, for multiple violations of professional conduct rules including failure to communicate, charging an unreasonable fee, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty in two motor vehicle matters. The Attorney Grievance Committee moved to impose reciprocal discipline in New York for all three Colorado disciplinary actions.
Holding
The Appellate Division imposed reciprocal discipline based on the three Colorado disciplinary actions. The Court applied the same framework as in other reciprocal discipline cases under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters section 1240.13, finding that Cimino failed to establish any of the three available defenses. All three instances of misconduct found by the Colorado courts—prohibited business transactions with clients, lack of diligence, unreasonable fees, and dishonesty—constitute violations of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct as well. The Court considered the cumulative nature of the three disciplinary actions in determining the appropriate level of reciprocal discipline.
Takeaways
When an attorney has been disciplined multiple times by a foreign jurisdiction, New York may impose reciprocal discipline for each instance of misconduct. The cumulative effect of multiple disciplinary actions may result in a more severe sanction than any single action would warrant. Attorneys practicing in multiple states should be aware that a pattern of disciplinary violations in one jurisdiction will follow them to New York and may result in enhanced reciprocal sanctions that reflect the full scope of their professional conduct history.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant because it demonstrates that New York courts will consider an attorney’s entire disciplinary history in a foreign jurisdiction when imposing reciprocal discipline, rather than treating each action in isolation. Attorneys with disciplinary records spanning decades and multiple violations face the compounding effect of those histories when New York imposes reciprocal sanctions. The case serves as a warning to multi-jurisdictional practitioners that professional conduct violations anywhere will have consequences in New York, and that a pattern of misconduct will be treated more seriously than an isolated incident.