Espinosa v. Attorney Grievance Committee (2025): Non-Retroactivity of Reciprocal Suspensions and Deference to Foreign Sanctions

1. Introduction

Matter of Espinosa (2025 NY Slip Op 03017) addresses reciprocal attorney discipline in New York following a three-year suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Respondent Tomas Espinosa, admitted in New York in 1986 and New Jersey in 1985, was sanctioned in New Jersey for extensive professional misconduct arising out of RICO foreclosure litigation. The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) sought identical discipline in New York under 22 NYCRR 1240.13. The First Department’s per curiam opinion grants the application, imposes a three-year suspension effective 30 days from the order, and—critically—clarifies that such suspension will not be applied retroactively where no interim suspension or voluntary practice cessation occurred.

Key Parties

Petitioner: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department (AGC)
Respondent: Tomas Espinosa, attorney admitted in NY & NJ (pro se in NY proceeding)

Core Issues

Whether New York should impose reciprocal discipline for misconduct determined in New Jersey.
Whether any of the three statutory defenses to reciprocal discipline apply.
Whether the New York suspension should run retroactively to the effective date of the New Jersey suspension.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court found none of the defenses to reciprocal discipline meritorious and adopted the New Jersey sanction of a three-year suspension. Relying on long-standing precedent that “significant weight” is given to the foreign jurisdiction’s sanction, the Court declined to modify the duration or severity. Distinctly, it refused to back-date the suspension to August 21 2024 (the New Jersey effective date), reasoning that:

No interim suspension had been imposed in New York.
There was no procedural delay attributable to New York officials.
Respondent did not voluntarily stop practicing under his New York license.

The suspension is therefore prospective, commencing 30 days after the May 20 2025 order.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Matter of Milara, 194 AD3d 108 (2021) – Articulates the three statutory defenses under 22 NYCRR 1240.13; the Court found none applicable.
Matter of Blumenthal, 165 AD3d 85 (2018) and Matter of Jaffe, 78 AD3d 152 (2010) – Establish the default rule of substantial deference to foreign sanctions.
Matter of Tustaniwsky, 204 AD3d 162 (2022) – Notes departure from the default rule is “rare”; cited to justify mirroring New Jersey’s sanction.
Matter of Geller, 218 AD3d 55 (2023); Matter of Kachroo, 180 AD3d 183 (2020); Matter of Yamada, 197 AD2d 235 (1994); Matter of Javitz, 88 AD2d 303 (1982) – Provide comparative guideposts for length of suspension when misconduct involves fee violations, conflicts, or fund mishandling.
Matter of Peters, 127 AD3d 103 (2015); Matter of Filosa, 112 AD3d 162 (2013); Matter of Gilly, 110 AD3d 164 (2013) – Address retroactivity; cited to contrast facts in which retroactive credit was granted (interim suspensions or voluntary cessation) with Espinosa.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Jurisdiction & Reciprocal Discipline (22 NYCRR 1240.13): As the “admitting department,” the First Department has continuing jurisdiction over Espinosa. 1240.13 presumes reciprocal discipline unless one of three defenses succeeds.
Evaluation of Defenses: a) Lack of notice/opportunity – Rejected; respondent had full participation. b) Infirmity of proof – Rejected; extensive factual record and multiple findings across NJ bodies. c) No NY misconduct – Rejected; New Jersey violations have direct New York counterparts (RPC 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, etc.).
Sanction Selection: The Court applies the Blumenthal/Jaffe principle: foreign jurisdiction has greatest interest, so same sanction unless exceptional circumstances. None existed.
Retroactivity Analysis: While cases such as Peters, Filosa, and Gilly allowed retroactive credit, those involved interim suspensions or voluntary discontinuance. The Court finds none of those factors here, emphasizing fairness to the public and the integrity of New York’s disciplinary system.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases and the Legal Landscape

Clarifies Retroactivity Standard: Espinosa establishes a bright-line: without (i) an interim New York suspension, (ii) procedural delay by NY authorities, or (iii) demonstrable voluntary abstention by the lawyer, a reciprocal suspension will be prospective.
Strengthens Comity in Attorney Discipline: Re-affirms New York’s deference to sister-state sanctions, minimizing relitigation of facts.
Guidance on Mixed Findings: Even where a foreign DRB is split on certain charges (e.g., knowing misappropriation), New York may still adopt the sanction so long as the ultimate court in the foreign jurisdiction has settled on a penalty.
Practical Attorney Considerations: Multi-jurisdictional practitioners must assume discipline in one state will echo in New York, and that delaying tactics or partial victories elsewhere will rarely affect the outcome.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Reciprocal Discipline: The process by which one jurisdiction imposes an identical or similar sanction on an attorney who has already been disciplined in another jurisdiction.
Interim Suspension: A temporary suspension imposed while an investigation or appeal is pending; often used to protect the public immediately.
Misappropriation of Client Funds: Using client money for purposes unrelated to the client without authorization; in New Jersey, “knowing” misappropriation generally mandates disbarment.
22 NYCRR 1240.13 Defenses: (1) No notice/opportunity to be heard, (2) Infirm proof, (3) Conduct not misconduct in NY. Success on any defense blocks mirror discipline.
Prospective vs. Retroactive Suspension: Prospective begins in the future; retroactive credits time already elapsed (e.g., from a foreign sanction date).

5. Conclusion

Matter of Espinosa reinforces New York’s commitment to comity in attorney regulation, holding that foreign disciplinary findings will ordinarily be mirrored absent extraordinary issues. The decision’s enduring contribution is its explicit refusal to grant retroactive credit without interim measures or voluntary withdrawal, providing clear guidance for future reciprocal cases. For the bar, the message is unequivocal: professional misconduct anywhere is sanctionable everywhere, and temporal advantages gained by continuing to practice after a foreign suspension will not be rewarded in New York.