Mandatory Biennial Attorney Registration and En Masse Suspension under Judiciary Law §468-a

Introduction

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, in Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register (2025 NYSlipOp 01717), confronted a large-scale default by over 1,000 New York–admitted attorneys who did not file the statutorily required biennial registration statements or pay the associated fees. Under Judiciary Law § 468-a, every resident and nonresident attorney admitted in New York must submit a registration statement every two years. Failure to comply constitutes “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” and triggers referral for disciplinary action. The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) moved to suspend en masse those attorneys who, despite repeated mailed notices and published warnings, remained in default. No respondents opposed the motion, and the Court granted immediate suspension.

Summary of the Judgment

On March 20, 2025, the First Department, per curiam, granted the AGC’s omnibus motion to suspend approximately 1,095 named attorneys for continued noncompliance with § 468-a. The Court recited the statutory requirement—biennial statements and applicable fees—and the exemption for retired attorneys. It detailed the multi-tiered notice process: initial mailing to home and business addresses, a final notice, publication in the New York Law Journal, and web postings. All defaulting attorneys were given 30 days from the last publication date to cure. Those who failed were ordered suspended “effective immediately.”

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Matter of Morgado, 159 AD3d 50 (1st Dept 2018): Established that failure to register under § 468-a constitutes professional misconduct warranting discipline.
• Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 211 AD3d 65 (1st Dept 2022): Approved similar en masse suspensions of attorneys who failed to file their biennial statements after proper notice.

In both cases, the Court recognized the legislature’s plenary authority to require ongoing registration as a condition of the privilege to practice law. These precedents reinforce that nonfiscal technical defaults—apart from misconduct in client representation—can still undermine the administration of justice and merit suspension.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three stages:

1. Statutory Mandate: Judiciary Law § 468-a mandates biennial registration and fee payment for all admitted attorneys, without reference to actual practice activity. It includes an exemption only for those who certify retirement.
2. Notice and Opportunity to Cure: Procedural due process was satisfied by multiple mailed notices, a final warning, publication in a widely circulated legal journal for five consecutive days, and a thirty-day cure period post-publication. The Court’s November 12, 2024 order specifically authorized service by publication and set the cure deadline of December 4, 2024.
3. Sanction for Noncompliance: Subdivision (5) of § 468-a provides that “[n]oncompliance by an attorney … shall constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” and mandates referral to the Appellate Division for disciplinary action. The Court followed this clear command by entering the suspension order.

3. Impact on Future Cases and the Profession

This decision underscores several important points for the New York bar and beyond:

• Vigilance in Administrative Obligations. Attorneys must monitor biennial deadlines and maintain current contact information with the Office of Court Administration (OCA).
• Precedential Consistency. The First Department has now repeatedly affirmed its readiness to impose en masse suspensions for § 468-a defaults, deterring future noncompliance.
• Broader Disciplinary Philosophy. The Court treats administrative defaults as more than mere paperwork errors; they are deemed prejudicial to the integrity of the justice system, justifying immediate suspension.
• Replication in Other Jurisdictions. Other states with mandatory registration schemes may look to this line of cases as a model for enforcing compliance through collective disciplinary measures.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Biennial Registration Statement: A form OCA mails to each admitted attorney every two years, requiring updates on current address, practice status, and payment of a fee.
• “Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice”: A catch-all disciplinary standard capturing behavior that erodes public confidence in the legal profession, here applied to registration defaults.
• Service by Publication: A procedural tool used when an attorney’s current address is unknown or default persists; a notice in a public journal satisfies due process.
• En Masse Suspension: A bulk disciplinary action targeting a group of attorneys simultaneously for the same statutory violation, rather than individual adjudications.

Conclusion

The 2025 en masse suspension order in Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a reaffirms the enduring principle that attorney registration obligations are integral to the orderly administration of justice. By upholding prior precedents and following the statute’s explicit referral mechanism, the First Department sends a clear message: compliance with OCA’s biennial registration process is mandatory, and failure to heed repeated, documented notices will result in immediate suspension from practice. The decision strengthens the procedural framework for enforcing administrative requirements and serves as a potent reminder that even seemingly ministerial defaults carry serious disciplinary consequences.