“Nunc Pro Tunc Reciprocity” – Matter of Stafford Establishes Equitable Timing in Cross-Jurisdictional Attorney Discipline

Introduction

Matter of Stafford (2025 NY Slip Op 02648) is a First Department Appellate Division decision concerning reciprocal discipline of attorney Ying Stafford, whose misconduct had already been sanctioned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Eastern District of New York. The New York Attorney Grievance Committee (“AGC”) sought identical discipline in the state forum. While the two-year suspension itself was unsurprising, the First Department broke new ground by ordering the suspension nunc pro tunc—retroactively—to the date on which the federal interim suspension was imposed because of the AGC’s own delay.

The ruling therefore articulates a new equitable principle for reciprocal discipline: where state authorities have notice of out-of-state sanctions yet fail to act diligently, the resulting state suspension may be back-dated to the earlier foreign date so that the lawyer is not punished twice in time. This “Nunc Pro Tunc Reciprocity Rule” has immediate implications for attorney-discipline practice and for the doctrine of comity between federal and state courts.

Summary of the Judgment

Misconduct: Stafford missed a petition-for-certiorari deadline in a high-profile criminal case and forged a Supreme Court denial to hide the error from her client.
Prior Discipline: The Second Circuit suspended her for two years, nunc pro tunc to 9 July 2019; the Eastern District did likewise.
AGC Motion: Sought reciprocal two-year suspension in New York.
Court’s Holding: Imposed the identical suspension but dated it back to 6 November 2019 (the date the Second Circuit’s interim suspension was first served on the AGC), stressing:

None of the three statutory defenses to reciprocal discipline applied.
Significant weight is to be given to foreign sanctions (Blumenthal).
Equity warranted nunc pro tunc relief because (i) the AGC had early notice yet delayed, (ii) federal suspensions had already expired, and (iii) Stafford voluntarily refrained from practice.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court harmonised several strands of disciplinary jurisprudence:

Matter of Milara, 194 AD3d 108 (2021) – Identifies the three exclusive defenses to reciprocal discipline (lack of notice, infirmity of proof, conduct not misconduct here). The Court recited the Milara template and found none applicable.
Matter of Blumenthal, 165 AD3d 85 (2018) and Matter of Jaffe, 78 AD3d 152 (2010) – Create the “significant weight” comity rule toward the sanction imposed where misconduct occurred. Stafford follows that rule but adds timing guidance.
Matter of Tustaniwsky, 204 AD3d 162 (2022) – Notes departures from foreign sanctions are “rare.” The Court distinguishes sanction amount from sanction start date, using the latter to serve equity without altering the foreign length.
Matter of Meyers, 108 AD3d 158 (2013) and cluster of cases (Samuely, Alperin, Cohen, O’Shea) – Establish two-year suspension as the norm for neglect plus misrepresentation. This provided the doctrinal benchmark for penalty severity.
Matter of Peters, 127 AD3d 103 (2015); Filosa, 112 AD3d 162 (2013); Gilly, 110 AD3d 164 (2013) – Earlier examples of nunc pro tunc suspensions where attorneys stood down voluntarily. Stafford extends the logic to reciprocal contexts coupled with disciplinary inaction.

2. Legal Reasoning

Step 1 – Applicability of Reciprocal Discipline. Using 22 NYCRR 1240.13 and Judiciary Law § 90(2), the Court confirmed its authority. It reviewed the three Milara defenses, finding each inapplicable because Stafford (i) had notice and opportunity before the Second Circuit, (ii) admitted wrongdoing with corroborating proof, and (iii) violated identical New York Rules of Professional Conduct (1.1, 1.3, 8.4).

Step 2 – Sanction Calibration. The Court applied its default rule of comity: mirror the foreign sanction unless a “rare instance” warrants departure. Two years was fully consistent with in-state precedent.

Step 3 – Equitable Dating (nunc pro tunc). Here lies the novel holding. The Court balanced the traditional “give significant weight” principle against equitable considerations: (1) the AGC’s four-year delay after being placed on notice; (2) the fact that federal suspensions had expired, making a prospective state suspension disproportionate; and (3) Stafford’s self-imposed abstention from practice. By back-dating to 6 November 2019 (when the AGC learned of the federal sanction), the Court preserved comity yet avoided duplication.

3. Impact

Clarifies Timing Doctrine: Establishes that in reciprocal cases the First Department may—indeed should—grant nunc pro tunc relief when disciplinary authorities were on notice but delayed.
Promotes Administrative Diligence: Signals to grievance committees that unexplained delay can cost them prospective sanction power.
Ensures Proportionality: Future respondents can rely on Stafford to argue against “double-time” suspensions once they have served the functional equivalent elsewhere.
Strengthens Federal–State Comity: By aligning its dates with the Second Circuit, the Court underscores respect for federal determinations while still exercising state oversight.
Protects the Public Without Over-Punishing: Lawyer remains suspended for the same substantive period, but timing reflects reality rather than bureaucratic delay.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Nunc Pro Tunc: Latin for “now for then.” A court order applied retroactively as if it had been entered on an earlier date.
Reciprocal Discipline: When one jurisdiction (here, New York) imposes discipline on an attorney because another jurisdiction (here, the Second Circuit) has already done so, unless certain statutory defenses exist.
Comity: The respect and deference courts give to each other’s decisions, especially important in attorney-discipline matters spanning federal and state systems.
Certiorari Petition: A formal request asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower-court decision.
Forgery vs. Fabrication: Here, Stafford created a false court document—both a crime and an ethical violation under Rule 8.4(c) (dishonesty/misrepresentation).

Conclusion

Matter of Stafford does more than merely echo a federal suspension; it shapes the mechanics of when a reciprocal suspension runs. By adopting a “Nunc Pro Tunc Reciprocity Rule,” the First Department balances deterrence and fairness, acknowledging both the need to discipline misconduct and the lawyer’s right not to suffer an elongated penalty due to agency inaction. Going forward, disciplinary bodies must move swiftly once on notice, or risk having their sanctions back-dated. Practitioners, meanwhile, gain clearer expectations that time served elsewhere will count, preserving the integrity and proportionality of New York’s attorney-discipline system.