- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Matter of Moss
- Date
- May 28, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03364
Background
Respondent David L. Moss was admitted to the New York bar in 1996. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department (AGC) moved for an order immediately suspending Moss from practice based on misconduct that immediately threatened the public interest. The AGC’s application was made pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters section 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), which authorize interim suspension when an attorney’s conduct poses an immediate threat to the public or when the attorney fails to cooperate with disciplinary proceedings. The motion was based on specific instances of professional misconduct identified during AGC’s investigation.
Holding
The Appellate Division granted the AGC’s motion and immediately suspended Moss from the practice of law until further order of the Court. The Court found that the evidence presented by AGC demonstrated misconduct that immediately threatened the public interest, warranting interim suspension pending the completion of disciplinary proceedings. The interim suspension was imposed under the standard requiring a showing that the attorney’s continued practice poses an immediate risk to clients or the public, which is a lower threshold than the standard required for final disciplinary action. The Court noted that Moss could seek reinstatement upon demonstrating that the basis for the interim suspension had been resolved.
Takeaways
Interim suspension is available when an attorney’s misconduct poses an immediate threat to the public, and it may be imposed on an expedited basis without the full procedural protections that accompany final disciplinary proceedings. The standard for interim suspension focuses on the immediacy of the risk to the public rather than on the ultimate disposition of the disciplinary charges. An attorney subject to interim suspension remains suspended until further order of the Court and must affirmatively seek reinstatement, which requires demonstrating that the grounds for the suspension have been addressed.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the First Department’s use of interim suspension as a protective measure for the public when an attorney’s continued practice poses an immediate risk. The interim suspension mechanism serves a different purpose than final disciplinary action: it protects clients and the public during the pendency of the investigation rather than imposing punishment for past misconduct. Attorneys who are the subject of AGC investigations should be aware that serious allegations of ongoing misconduct may result in immediate suspension, even before formal charges are filed or a hearing is conducted.