Date: Aug 28, 2026

Matter of Bitterman: New York Reciprocal Discipline Gives Significant Weight to the Foreign Sanction and Imposes Matching Public Censure

1. Introduction

Matter of Bitterman (Appellate Division, Second Department, Aug. 26, 2026) is a reciprocal-discipline decision under 22 NYCRR 1240.13. The respondent, Gregory Val Bitterman, a New York attorney admitted in 1986, had been publicly reprimanded by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (summary order dated June 13, 2024) for repeated defaults in a client’s criminal appeal and for failing to timely and adequately respond to the Second Circuit’s disciplinary show-cause order.

The core issues before the Second Department were (i) whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed based on the Second Circuit’s order and (ii) what sanction should be selected in New York given the federal sanction and New York’s approach to reciprocity.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The court held that reciprocal discipline was warranted based on the misconduct underlying the Second Circuit’s public reprimand—years of inaction and noncompliance regarding an appeal, coupled with delayed and inadequate responses to disciplinary directives. Applying New York’s reciprocal-discipline framework, the court concluded that the appropriate New York sanction was public censure and entered an order publicly censuring the respondent pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Matter of Megaro

The decision’s governing sanction principle is drawn from Matter of Megaro, 215 AD3d 67, 84, quoted by the court for the proposition that, in reciprocal proceedings, New York “generally accord[s] significant weight” to the sanction imposed by the disciplining jurisdiction because that jurisdiction has the “greatest interest” in addressing misconduct occurring before it. The court further relied on Matter of Megaro for the operational rule: when the foreign sanction “is not inconsistent with the sanction for similar misconduct” in New York, the court “should impose the same sanction.”

In Matter of Bitterman, the Second Department used that principle to align New York’s outcome with the Second Circuit’s: the federal court’s public reprimand translated to a New York public censure—functionally parallel public discipline.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in two linked steps:

Reciprocal-discipline eligibility under 22 NYCRR 1240.13. The court found that the conduct underlying the Second Circuit discipline—persistent defaults on a client’s appeal, failure to comply with court instructions, and tardy disciplinary responses—supported the imposition of reciprocal discipline in New York.
Sanction selection through deference to the foreign jurisdiction. Relying on Matter of Megaro, the court emphasized deference to the foreign jurisdiction’s sanctioning judgment when it is compatible with New York sanctions for comparable misconduct. Because the Second Circuit had imposed a public reprimand, and because that level of public discipline is consistent with New York’s censure framework for similar noncompliance-related attorney misconduct, the court imposed public censure.

The opinion also notes two procedural compliance failures that framed the New York proceeding: (i) the respondent did not notify New York of the Second Circuit discipline as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d), and (ii) his response to the Second Department’s order to show cause was untimely and procedurally defective, echoing the same pattern of noncompliance the federal court had addressed. While the sanction ultimately tracks the foreign sanction, these details reinforce the court’s concern with repeated failures to follow court directives.

C. Impact

Practical harmonization of federal and state discipline. The decision illustrates that federal “public reprimand” orders can map cleanly onto New York “public censure,” promoting consistent public outcomes across jurisdictions when the misconduct and sanction levels are comparable.
Reinforced deference principle in reciprocal cases. By explicitly applying Matter of Megaro, the Second Department signals that litigating sanction severity in New York reciprocal proceedings is an uphill endeavor absent a clear inconsistency with New York sanctioning norms.
Heightened caution for appellate practice defaults. The underlying narrative—multi-year failure to perfect or properly withdraw an appeal, combined with ignored court communications—underscores that persistent neglect and nonresponsiveness to tribunals can produce discipline even where a client later expresses satisfaction or prejudice is disputed.
Compliance obligations in New York’s disciplinary system. The court’s mention of the 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) notification requirement and the respondent’s untimely show-cause response highlights that attorneys must treat reciprocal-discipline procedures (deadlines, format, adjournment practice) as strict compliance matters—especially when prior discipline arose from similar noncompliance.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Reciprocal discipline (22 NYCRR 1240.13): A New York process that imposes discipline on a New York lawyer based on discipline already imposed by another jurisdiction (e.g., a federal appellate court), typically focusing on whether New York should mirror the foreign result.
Public reprimand vs. public censure: Different jurisdictions use different labels for a similar outcome: a formal public finding of misconduct that does not suspend or disbar the lawyer. In this case, the federal “public reprimand” is matched by New York’s “public censure.”
Default (in appellate practice): Failure to take required steps in an appeal—such as filing required papers, paying fees, complying with local rules, or responding to the court—risking dismissal and triggering discipline when persistent or coupled with nonresponsiveness.
Show-cause order: A directive requiring a lawyer to explain, by a deadline and often in a specific format, why discipline should not be imposed. Ignoring or delaying the response is itself aggravating conduct.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Bitterman applies New York’s reciprocal-discipline rule that substantial deference is owed to the disciplining jurisdiction’s sanction, as articulated in Matter of Megaro. Where the foreign sanction is consistent with New York’s approach to similar misconduct, New York will generally impose a matching level of discipline. Here, the Second Department translated the Second Circuit’s public reprimand into New York public censure, while underscoring that persistent noncompliance with appellate obligations—and repeated failures to respond to court directives—can independently fuel and compound disciplinary exposure across jurisdictions.