Anti‑SLAPP Is No Shield to Reciprocal Attorney Discipline; Non‑Relitigation and Rule 8.2(a) Reaffirmed — Matter of Jacobs (2025 NY Slip Op 04093)

Introduction

Matter of Jacobs is a reciprocal disciplinary decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department, arising from sanctions imposed on attorney Bruce Jacobs by the Supreme Court of Florida. Florida suspended Jacobs for 91 days and taxed costs after finding that, in foreclosure litigation, he impugned the qualifications and integrity of judges and failed to disclose controlling adverse authority. The New York Grievance Committee initiated reciprocal proceedings under 22 NYCRR 1240.13.

Jacobs opposed reciprocal discipline on constitutional and procedural grounds, asserting First Amendment protection, selective prosecution, and retaliatory enforcement. In a novel gambit, he also moved to dismiss the New York proceeding under New York’s Anti‑SLAPP statute (Civil Rights Law § 76‑a), contending that reciprocal discipline chilled his speech on matters of public concern (alleged judicial misconduct and foreclosure fraud).

The core questions before the court were:

Whether a New York reciprocal disciplinary proceeding can be dismissed as a “SLAPP” under Civil Rights Law § 76‑a.
Whether, and to what extent, a respondent may relitigate the merits of the foreign state’s disciplinary findings in New York.
Whether the Florida‑proven misconduct would constitute misconduct under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rule 8.2(a).
The appropriate sanction in New York given the Florida suspension.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division denied Jacobs’s Anti‑SLAPP motion to dismiss and imposed reciprocal discipline. Emphasizing the non‑relitigation rule that governs reciprocal cases, the court held that Jacobs could not reargue the merits of Florida’s determination in New York. It further held that the underlying conduct—public statements impugning judges’ integrity without adequate factual foundation—violates New York Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2(a). Under the “totality of the circumstances,” the court suspended Jacobs from the practice of law in New York for six months, a period longer than Florida’s 91‑day suspension, and set standard compliance and reinstatement conditions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15 and 1240.16.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied on two Second Department authorities to underscore the non‑relitigation principle in reciprocal discipline:

Matter of Weissmann, 180 AD3d 155 (2d Dept 2020) — Held that in reciprocal disciplinary proceedings, a respondent may not collaterally attack or relitigate the merits of a foreign jurisdiction’s disciplinary findings. New York’s role is limited to determining whether any enumerated defenses under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) are established and, if not, to impose appropriate discipline.
Matter of Carmel, 154 AD3d 72 (2d Dept 2017) — Reaffirmed that reciprocal discipline is largely ministerial as to factual findings; unless the respondent proves a recognized defense (e.g., lack of due process, infirmity of proof, or that the conduct would not constitute misconduct in New York), New York accepts the foreign jurisdiction’s findings as established.

These cases frame the procedural posture: New York will not retry Florida’s case. Instead, the respondent must carry the burden of one of the limited reciprocal‑discipline defenses.

Legal Reasoning

1) The Reciprocal Discipline Framework (22 NYCRR 1240.13)

Under 22 NYCRR 1240.13, discipline imposed elsewhere triggers reciprocal proceedings in New York. The rule creates a rebuttable presumption that reciprocal discipline will be imposed unless the respondent demonstrates one or more limited defenses, including:

Lack of due process in the foreign proceeding.
Infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct (i.e., the foreign findings are not supported by an adequate evidentiary record).
That the underlying conduct does not constitute professional misconduct in New York.
(Often argued) that imposition of discipline would be unjust in New York given the circumstances.

Jacobs principally invoked the “infirmity of proof” and “no New York misconduct” defenses under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b)(2) and (3), and raised broader fairness and constitutional concerns. The court rejected these arguments, holding that:

Jacobs cannot relitigate Florida’s merits in New York; the Florida findings stand.
Florida’s established misconduct—statements impugning judicial integrity—corresponds to a violation of New York Rule 8.2(a).
There was no showing of due process failure or evidentiary infirmity in Florida.

2) Rule 8.2(a) and the Limits of Lawyer Speech About Judges

New York Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2(a) prohibits a lawyer from making statements about a judge’s integrity or qualifications that the lawyer knows to be false or makes with reckless disregard as to truth or falsity. Florida’s case centered on a series of filings in which Jacobs accused judges of bias, lawlessness, complicity in fraud, and allegiance to banks, among other assertions. Florida’s tribunal found these statements violated its analogue to Rule 8.2(a) and were proven by clear and convincing evidence.

The New York court agreed that this conduct also violates New York’s Rule 8.2(a). Importantly, the court did not weigh the truth of Jacobs’s accusations anew; instead, it treated Florida’s determinations as established, consistent with Weissmann and Carmel. This approach necessarily rejects the First Amendment and “truth” defenses to the extent they depend on re‑litigating Florida’s factual record.

3) Anti‑SLAPP Is Inapplicable to Attorney Discipline

Jacobs filed a separate motion to dismiss under Civil Rights Law § 76‑a (Anti‑SLAPP), arguing that reciprocal discipline is a “SLAPP” aimed at silencing his protected speech on matters of public concern. The Appellate Division summarily denied the motion as “without merit.”

Although brief, the holding carries significant doctrinal weight. Anti‑SLAPP statutes are designed to deter meritless civil lawsuits brought to chill participation in public discourse. A reciprocal attorney discipline proceeding is:

Not a private civil “action” seeking damages, but a court‑regulated, quasi‑administrative process regulating the bar.
Initiated by the court/disciplinary authority to protect the integrity of the profession and the courts, not to redress reputational harm.
Governed by its own specialized procedural framework (22 NYCRR part 1240), which allocates burdens and defenses distinct from Anti‑SLAPP.

By rejecting the Anti‑SLAPP motion outright, the court implicitly confirms that § 76‑a is not a vehicle to block or recharacterize attorney disciplinary proceedings, including reciprocal matters, and that such proceedings do not constitute SLAPPs.

4) First Amendment Arguments Are Not Re‑Adjudicated in Reciprocity

Jacobs framed his Florida discipline as unconstitutional retaliation for speech about judicial misconduct. New York declined to entertain that collateral attack. The reciprocal posture does not afford a de novo constitutional merits review; it asks whether the foreign proceeding afforded due process and whether the proven conduct would violate New York’s rules. Because Florida applied a clear and convincing standard, held multi‑day hearings, issued findings, and imposed a sanction affirmed by its Supreme Court, New York found no due process defect or evidentiary infirmity.

5) Sanction: New York May Adjust the Length

New York imposed a six‑month suspension—longer than Florida’s 91 days. Under 22 NYCRR 1240.13, New York is not bound to mirror the foreign sanction; it may calibrate the sanction to New York norms and the “totality of the circumstances.” A six‑month suspension is a standard New York term that requires an application for reinstatement demonstrating compliance (22 NYCRR 1240.16), including the affidavits and notices required of suspended attorneys (22 NYCRR 1240.15).

Impact

Matter of Jacobs has several practical and doctrinal implications:

Anti‑SLAPP is off the table in attorney disciplinary proceedings. Respondents cannot recast regulatory discipline as a SLAPP to obtain early dismissal or fee shifting.
Non‑relitigation in reciprocity is robust. New York will not retry the facts or constitutional claims decided elsewhere. The foreign record governs unless a recognized 1240.13 defense is established.
Rule 8.2(a) has real teeth. Lawyers’ public accusations about judges must be grounded in fact. Reckless or knowingly false attacks on judicial integrity will support discipline, even when cloaked as advocacy in litigation filings or “speech on public issues.”
New York can enhance sanctions. A lawyer suspended in another jurisdiction should not assume New York will match the term; it may increase the sanction to align with local standards.
Duties in appellate practice travel across borders. Although New York focused on Rule 8.2(a), the underlying Florida findings included failure to cite controlling adverse authority. New York similarly requires disclosure of directly adverse, controlling legal authority not disclosed by opposing counsel (Rule 3.3[a][2]). Multijurisdictional practitioners must meet the strictest applicable candor and professionalism rules.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reciprocal discipline: When one jurisdiction disciplines a lawyer, other jurisdictions where the lawyer is admitted may impose corresponding discipline based on the same misconduct, without re‑trying the case.
22 NYCRR 1240.13: New York’s rule governing reciprocal discipline. It creates a presumption of discipline and limits defenses to a few grounds (lack of due process, infirmity of proof, conduct not misconduct in NY, or that discipline would be unjust).
Rule 8.2(a): A lawyer must not make statements about a judge’s integrity or qualifications that the lawyer knows are false or makes with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.
Infirmity of proof: A defense asserting the foreign jurisdiction’s findings lacked adequate evidentiary support. It is not a license to re‑litigate; rather, it challenges the sufficiency of the foreign record on its own terms.
Anti‑SLAPP (Civil Rights Law § 76‑a): A statute designed to deter meritless lawsuits that target speech or petitioning on public issues. It does not apply to court‑regulated disciplinary proceedings against lawyers.
Clear and convincing evidence: A heightened civil burden of proof requiring that the evidence makes the fact to be proven highly probable. Florida used this standard in finding misconduct.
Adverse authority disclosure: Lawyers must disclose controlling legal precedents directly adverse to their position when not disclosed by the opponent. This duty protects the tribunal’s decisional integrity.
Reinstatement after suspension: In New York, a suspended lawyer must demonstrate compliance (non‑practice, notice, return of credentials) and fitness before reinstatement is granted (22 NYCRR 1240.15–.16).

Conclusion

Matter of Jacobs clarifies three important points in New York disciplinary law. First, the Anti‑SLAPP statute offers no shelter against attorney discipline, including reciprocal proceedings. Second, reciprocal cases are not vehicles to re‑litigate the merits or rehash constitutional defenses resolved elsewhere; the limited defenses in 22 NYCRR 1240.13 govern. Third, New York will treat out‑of‑state attacks on judicial integrity as violations of Rule 8.2(a) and may calibrate sanctions independently of the originating jurisdiction.

For multistate practitioners, the decision is a cautionary guidepost: speech about judges, even when motivated by perceived systemic wrongs, must conform to the profession’s standards of truthfulness and responsibility. Reciprocal discipline is real, swift, and resistant to collateral constitutional and statutory challenges. The case thus strengthens the framework that protects judicial integrity while preserving the orderly administration of reciprocal attorney discipline in New York.