Forging a Colleague’s Signature, Misstating Material Facts, and Unilateral Discontinuance: Second Department affirms that such misconduct—paired with failure to advise of potential malpractice—warrants a multi‑year suspension

Introduction

This commentary examines the Appellate Division, Second Department’s per curiam decision in Matter of Blyer (2025 NY Slip Op 04005), a disciplinary proceeding arising out of a personal injury representation that went awry when the statute of limitations expired and the attorney responded by filing pleadings with a fabricated accident date, signing a colleague’s name without consent, and later discontinuing the lawsuit with prejudice without the client’s authorization. The court confirms all seven misconduct charges and imposes a three‑year suspension (effective immediately), setting a firm timetable and conditions for any future reinstatement.

The decision is notable for the way it weaves together multiple strands of professional responsibility: diligence and neglect (Rule 1.3), communication duties (Rule 1.4), honesty (Rule 8.4[c]), and overall fitness to practice (Rule 8.4[h]). It is also significant for its handling of the overlap between a “serious crime” conviction (criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, Penal Law § 170.20) that had already triggered an interim suspension, and the final disciplinary sanction based on the same misconduct. The court’s sanction analysis emphasizes prior discipline, lack of remorse, and client injury, while giving limited weight to mitigation.

Summary of the Judgment

• Proceeding: The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District prosecuted seven charges against attorney Steven R. Blyer, all tied to his firm’s handling of a slip‑and‑fall claim for client Kathy Chiriboga.
• Key Facts: The firm missed the statute of limitations (SOL). Eight days after the SOL expired, the respondent filed a complaint altering the accident date (from February 10 to February 20, 2017), signed another attorney’s name without consent, served the complaint, and later executed a stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice without the client’s consent. He did not promptly inform the client and did not advise her of a potential malpractice claim against his firm.
• Criminal Overlay: The respondent was convicted of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree (Penal Law § 170.20), a class A misdemeanor deemed a “serious crime” under Judiciary Law § 90(4). On July 19, 2024, the Appellate Division imposed an interim suspension.
• Special Referee: All seven charges were sustained. Mitigation included health issues; aggravation included lack of remorse and attempts to shift blame.
• Appellate Division’s Holding: The court grants the motion to confirm and, “under the totality of the circumstances,” suspends the respondent for three years, effective immediately, with conditions for reinstatement. The earliest reinstatement application date is January 3, 2028.

Factual Background and Procedural Timeline

• Accident and Retainer: The client’s accident occurred on February 10, 2017. The firm was retained for a personal injury action; the SOL expired February 10, 2020.
• Missed Deadline and Altered Filing: On February 18, 2020, the respondent filed pleadings alleging an accident date of February 20, 2017, and signed another attorney’s name (Andrew Staulcup) to the summons, complaint, and verification without consent. He proceeded to serve the complaint in June 2020.
• Internal Dispute: Staulcup told the respondent not to serve; the respondent did so anyway. By October 2020, an email from the client confirmed the original accident date was February 10, 2017.
• Discontinuance Without Consent: On January 27, 2021, respondent executed a stipulation discontinuing the action with prejudice. The client was not told until February 7, 2022; she was told the case had been “dismissed by the court.” The respondent did not inform the client about a potential malpractice claim against the firm.
• Disciplinary Case: A Special Referee was appointed; after a hearing, all charges were sustained on September 12, 2023. The Appellate Division imposed an interim suspension on July 19, 2024, based on the “serious crime” conviction; the present decision imposes a three-year final suspension and sets reinstatement conditions.

The Charges and Rules Implicated

The seven sustained charges fall into four principal categories:

• Diligence/Neglect: Rule 1.3(b) — neglect of a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer.
• Communication Failures: Rule 1.4(a)(1)(iii) — failure to promptly inform client of material developments (both the discontinuance with prejudice and the potential malpractice claim); Rule 1.4(a)(2) — failure to consult about the means to achieve the client’s objectives; Rule 1.4(a)(3) — failure to keep the client reasonably informed about status.
• Honesty and Misrepresentation: Rule 8.4(c) — conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (signing another attorney’s name; altering the accident date to avoid SOL; misleading explanation that the case had been “dismissed by the court”).
• Fitness: Rule 8.4(h) — conduct adversely reflecting on fitness as a lawyer.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited by the Court

The decision does not rely on case‑law citations; instead, it applies the controlling statutory and regulatory framework:

• Judiciary Law § 90(4)(d) and (f): Defines “serious crime” and authorizes immediate suspension upon such a conviction. The respondent’s conviction under Penal Law § 170.20 (criminal possession of a forged instrument 3rd degree) — a class A misdemeanor involving deceit — qualifies.
• Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0): Rules 1.3(b), 1.4(a)(1)(iii), 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), 8.4(c), and 8.4(h), as detailed above.
• Disciplinary Procedure Rules: 22 NYCRR 1240.15 (duties of suspended attorneys), 1240.16 (reinstatement), and 691.11(a) (CLE requirements in the Second Department).

Even without case citations, the court’s approach is consistent with established New York disciplinary practice: interim suspension upon a “serious crime” conviction, followed by final discipline after a referee’s hearing and confirmation, with sanctions calibrated to the misconduct and aggravating/mitigating factors.

Legal Reasoning

1) Neglect and Diligence (Rule 1.3[b])

The SOL lapse was the initial failure. The respondent’s subsequent efforts to “fix” the lapse by revising the accident date did not cure the neglect; rather, they compounded it with dishonesty. The court accepts the referee’s finding that the entrusted matter (timely commencement of the action) was neglected. Heavy workload and office stress do not excuse missing a non‑extendable statutory deadline.

2) Communication Duties (Rule 1.4)

• Material developments (Rule 1.4[a][1][iii]): Discontinuing a case with prejudice is quintessentially material. The client was not told promptly — indeed, she learned many months later, and even then was given an inaccurate account (“dismissed by the court”). Separately, when attorney error puts a client’s claim at risk, the possibility of a malpractice claim against the firm is itself a material development the lawyer must disclose promptly and clearly.
• Consultation on means (Rule 1.4[a][2]): The decision to discontinue with prejudice is not a mere tactical step; it ends the case. The client had a right to be consulted and to make informed choices about case‑ending decisions.
• Status updates (Rule 1.4[a][3]): The client’s December 2021 inquiry underscores a breakdown in ordinary status communication over many months.

3) Honesty and Misrepresentation (Rule 8.4[c])

The crux of the dishonesty findings lies in:

• Altering the accident date in the pleading to evade the SOL, a material misstatement in a court filing.
• Signing another attorney’s name to the summons, complaint, and verification without consent.
• Continuing to serve the complaint despite internal warnings, and later characterizing the case’s end as a “court dismissal” rather than a voluntary discontinuance following an expired SOL.

These acts meet the rule’s prohibition on deceit and misrepresentation. They also dovetail with the criminal conviction for possessing a forged instrument — a recognized “serious crime” involving deception.

4) Fitness to Practice (Rule 8.4[h])

The court treats the overall pattern — missed deadline, deceptive filing, unauthorized signature, unilateral discontinuance, and failure to notify — as conduct adversely reflecting on fitness. The referee’s observation that the respondent sought to justify his acts and shift responsibility to a junior lawyer aggravates that assessment.

5) The Sanction: Why Three Years?

The Appellate Division’s sanction calculus turned on the “totality of the circumstances,” including:

• Aggravation: Prior disciplinary history (two Admonitions and a Letter of Caution for similar neglect/communication lapses), client injury (loss of claim; with prejudice discontinuance), lack of remorse, and attempted blame‑shifting.
• Mitigation: Health issues over several years. The respondent described extreme workload and “embarrassment,” but these explanations carried little weight relative to the intentional dishonest conduct and client harm.

Notably, the court sets the suspension “effective immediately” and states that the respondent may not apply for reinstatement earlier than January 3, 2028, while also requiring proof of compliance with the duties of suspended attorneys and CLE obligations. This structure ensures a substantial period of non‑practice and re‑education before any return, and reflects the court’s judgment that the combination of dishonesty and client‑communication failures warrants a multi‑year sanction even after an interim suspension.

Impact and Forward‑Looking Significance

A. Signature Integrity and E‑Filing Practices

The decision squarely condemns the practice of signing another attorney’s name to pleadings or verifications without express consent. Every signature on a court paper is a personal certification; forging a colleague’s name is both dishonest under the ethics rules and can constitute a criminal act. Firms must adopt clear protocols: if one lawyer files, that lawyer signs; if a signature is affixed on someone’s behalf, it must be with explicit authorization and transparency, not retroactive rationalization.

B. Material Facts Are Not Elastic

Changing an accident date to evade a statute of limitations is not “zealous advocacy”; it is misrepresentation. The court’s response confirms that manipulating material facts in pleadings — especially after internal warning signs — will be treated as a grave ethics violation and may expose the lawyer to criminal liability.

C. Client Consent and Discontinuance With Prejudice

Unilaterally ending a client’s case with prejudice is a paradigm “material development” requiring both consultation and consent. Even though the court grounded this charge in Rule 1.4 (rather than Rule 1.2’s client‑authority provisions), the message is unmistakable: case‑ending decisions belong to the client, and a lawyer who acts without authorization risks discipline on multiple fronts.

D. Duty to Inform of Potential Malpractice

The court treats the failure to advise the client of a potential malpractice claim as a distinct Rule 1.4 violation. This underscores an important and sometimes overlooked obligation: when an error or omission materially risks the client’s objectives, the client must be told — plainly and promptly — including the advisability of seeking independent counsel regarding any claim against the firm.

E. Sanctioning Factors: Remorse and Prior History Matter

The opinion highlights how lack of remorse and prior disciplinary history amplify sanctions. Lawyers facing discipline should understand that explanations grounded in workload, embarrassment, or informal internal understandings do not mitigate intentional dishonesty or failures to communicate. Transparent acceptance of responsibility and corrective action carry far more weight.

F. Procedural Integration of Criminal and Disciplinary Tracks

The decision illustrates how a misdemeanor involving deceit qualifies as a “serious crime” for interim suspension, yet the court still proceeds through the standard disciplinary process (referee hearing, confirmation) before imposing a final sanction. Practitioners should expect that criminal and disciplinary consequences will be coordinated but distinct; an interim suspension is not the last word.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Serious Crime (Judiciary Law § 90[4]): Certain misdemeanors involving fraud, deceit, or false statements count as “serious crimes.” A conviction allows the Appellate Division to suspend an attorney immediately, pending final discipline.
• Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument (Penal Law § 170.20): Possession of a forged document with knowledge it is forged and with intent to defraud, deceive, or injure. Here, the forged “instrument” was the court filing bearing a colleague’s signature without authorization.
• Stipulation of Discontinuance With Prejudice: An agreement ending a case permanently. Once “with prejudice,” the client cannot refile; thus, client consent and prompt notice are mandatory.
• Material Development (Rule 1.4[a][1][iii]): An event or decision that significantly affects the client’s rights or case trajectory (for example, a dismissal, discontinuance, settlement, or a known error jeopardizing the claim). Such developments must be conveyed promptly.
• Examination Under Oath (EUO): Testimony given under oath in the disciplinary process; statements minimizing or denying responsibility can undermine credibility and aggravate sanctions.
• Reinstatement Conditions (22 NYCRR 1240.16; 1240.15): A suspended lawyer must demonstrate non‑practice, compliance with all suspension duties, completion of required CLE, and overall fitness before reinstatement will be considered.

Practice Pointers for Lawyers and Firms

• Calendaring and Redundancy: Institute multi‑layer SOL checks. Automate alerts and require pre‑expiration audits.
• Signature Protocols: Never sign another lawyer’s name. If filing, sign your own name and be accountable.
• Fact Verification: Verify critical facts (like accident dates) with the client, in writing, especially when the date is pivotal to the SOL.
• Client Consent for Case‑Ending Decisions: Document the client’s authorization for any discontinuance, settlement, or waiver of rights.
• Error Disclosure: If an error may harm the client, promptly inform the client in plain terms and advise about independent counsel for potential claims.
• Communication Hygiene: Provide regular status updates and promptly report any major development. Avoid speaking only to family “representatives” unless the client has authorized this arrangement, and even then ensure the client is directly informed of critical events.
• Remediation and Remorse: In disciplinary contexts, forthright acceptance of responsibility and concrete remedial steps (training, supervision reforms, workload adjustments) can meaningfully influence sanctions.

Conclusion

Matter of Blyer reinforces core professional norms in New York disciplinary law. Missing a statute of limitations, then attempting to salvage a case by altering material facts and forging a colleague’s signature, crosses clear ethical and legal lines. The additional failures — unilaterally discontinuing a case with prejudice, delaying disclosure to the client, and omitting advice about a potential malpractice claim — compound the misconduct. The Second Department’s three‑year suspension, accompanied by stringent conditions for reinstatement, underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for dishonesty and communication failures that harm clients.

As a practical precedent, the decision clarifies that (1) unauthorized signatures on pleadings are both dishonest and potentially criminal; (2) case‑ending actions require client consent and prompt notice; and (3) when an attorney’s error jeopardizes a client’s matter, timely disclosure and guidance about independent recourse are themselves ethical imperatives. Going forward, New York practitioners should expect multi‑year suspensions for similar combinations of deceit and neglect, especially where prior discipline and lack of remorse are present.