Matter of Hernandez: Reciprocal Disbarment, Self‑Reporting Duties, and Supervisory Liability in Virtual Law Offices

I. Introduction

The Appellate Division, First Department’s decision in Matter of Hernandez, 2025 NY Slip Op 07100 (Dec. 18, 2025), is a significant addition to New York’s jurisprudence on reciprocal discipline and attorney professional responsibility in multi-jurisdictional and “virtual” practice settings.

The case concerns attorney Alejandro R. Hernandez Jr., admitted in New York in 2021 (Third Department) and in Texas in 1995. After extensive disciplinary proceedings in Texas based on nine client complaints, Hernandez was first suspended for five years and then disbarred by the State Bar of Texas in mid‑2024. That disbarment triggered reciprocal discipline by the federal immigration authorities (BIA, Immigration Courts, DHS) and by the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Hernandez did not report any of these disciplinary actions to New York authorities as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d). Once the New York Office of Court Administration was notified by the Texas Bar and relayed the information, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department (“AGC”) moved for reciprocal discipline. The First Department, relying on the doctrine of reciprocal discipline and its own Rules of Professional Conduct, ordered Hernandez’s disbarment in New York.

This Opinion is noteworthy in three overlapping respects:

It reaffirms and applies New York’s strong presumption of deference to foreign disciplinary sanctions under 22 NYCRR 1240.13.
It underscores that a lawyer cannot avoid responsibility by structuring a “virtual law office” with associated external attorneys; supervisory liability remains central.
It emphasizes that failure to self‑report foreign and federal discipline is a serious aggravating factor when New York determines its own sanction.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The First Department, in a per curiam opinion, granted the AGC’s motion under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) and ordered that:

Hernandez be disbarred in New York and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys.
The disbarment be effective immediately and remain in place until further order of the Court.
Hernandez comply with the rules governing disbarred attorneys (22 NYCRR 1240.15), including ceasing all forms of legal practice, legal advice, and representation.
Any secure pass issued by the Office of Court Administration be returned forthwith.

The Court:

Described the underlying Texas discipline, including findings of neglect, failure to communicate, improper fee‑splitting, mishandling client funds/property, failure to protect clients upon termination, improper settlement of a potential malpractice claim, and failure to supervise subordinate lawyers.
Noted that reciprocal disbarments were imposed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Held that none of the three limited defenses to reciprocal discipline under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) were available to Hernandez.
Found that Hernandez’s conduct in Texas would constitute misconduct under multiple New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0).
Accepted the AGC’s position that Hernandez’s failure to self‑report the Texas, BIA, and New Mexico discipline was an aggravating factor weighing in favor of disbarment.
Applied the general rule of deferring to the foreign jurisdiction’s sanction and concluded that disbarment is the appropriate and commensurate sanction in New York.

III. Factual and Procedural Background

A. The Texas Disciplinary Proceedings

Between April and July 2024, the Texas Commission for Lawyer Discipline brought proceedings against Hernandez arising from nine client complaints. Hearings were held before an Evidentiary Panel of the Texas Grievance Committee. Hernandez:

Was served with notice of the charges.
Appeared at the hearings and testified.
Was represented by counsel.

Hernandez owned and operated his firm, The Law Offices of Alex R. Hernandez, Jr. PLLC. He and attorney Gary Magnuson arranged what they described as a “virtual law office” with outside attorneys, who were paid by The Law Offices of Gary A. Magnuson, PLLC. Hernandez had direct supervisory authority over the attorneys working with his firm.

Three clients in the first set of complaints had signed retainer agreements that:

Identified the client as hiring Hernandez’s firm.
Did not identify any other attorneys or law firms.
Did not disclose any fee division or joint responsibility.

Despite this, Hernandez:

Associated lawyers outside his firm to work on the matters.
Arranged to divide legal fees with them.
Did not ensure that the division was proportionate to services rendered or that the associated lawyers assumed joint responsibility.
Did not obtain the clients’ informed written consent to the fee division before the associations or referrals, as required.

The Texas evidentiary panel further found that Hernandez:

Failed to keep clients reasonably informed about their cases despite their repeated reasonable requests.
Neglected client matters.
Upon termination of representation, failed to take reasonable steps to protect clients’ interests, including:
- Not surrendering papers or property to which clients were entitled.
- Not refunding unearned fees.
Settled a client’s liability claim (a malpractice-type claim) against himself when the client was not independently represented, without first advising the client in writing that independent representation was appropriate.
As a supervising lawyer, ordered, encouraged, or knowingly permitted other lawyers to commit disciplinary violations.

The Texas panel concluded that Hernandez violated, among others, the following Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1.01(b)(1) – neglect of a legal matter.
Rule 1.03(a) – failure to keep clients reasonably informed and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
Rule 1.03(b) – failure to explain matters sufficiently for informed client decision‑making (in the later proceedings).
Rule 1.04(f)(1)(i), (ii); 1.04(f)(2)(i)-(iii); 1.04(g)(1), (2) – improper division of fees.
Rule 1.08(g) – improperly settling a malpractice claim with a client not independently represented and without appropriate written advice.
Rule 1.14(b) (now 1.15(b)) – failure to promptly deliver client or third‑person funds or property.
Rule 1.15(d) (now 1.16(d)) – failure upon termination to take steps reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests.
Rule 5.01(a) – failure to adequately supervise subordinate lawyers.

B. Sanctions in Texas, BIA, and New Mexico

The Texas panel initially imposed an active suspension from September 1, 2024, through August 31, 2029. Hernandez filed an appeal to the Texas Board of Disciplinary Appeals (BDA) but subsequently moved to dismiss his own appeal; the BDA granted that motion on November 13, 2024.

Subsequent hearings (May–July 2024) addressed six additional client complaints, which overlapped factually with the earlier three. Based on these, the panel again found:

Communication failures.
Neglect of matters.
Failure to promptly deliver funds or property owed to clients.
Failure to protect clients’ interests upon termination.
Supervisory failures in relation to other lawyers.

The panel imposed the more severe sanction of disbarment, effective nunc pro tunc (retroactively) to July 10, 2024.

This Texas disbarment led to further reciprocal discipline:

On November 22, 2024, the BIA disbarred Hernandez from practice before the BIA, Immigration Courts, and DHS, effective nunc pro tunc to October 10, 2024.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of New Mexico disbarred Hernandez based on the Texas disbarment.

C. Failure to Self‑Report and Initiation of New York Proceedings

Crucially, Hernandez did not report:

The Texas suspension.
The Texas disbarment.
The BIA disbarment.
The New Mexico disbarment.

to either the Appellate Division or the AGC, as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d).

On November 18, 2024, the Texas State Bar itself notified New York’s Office of Court Administration (OCA), which forwarded the information to the AGC around December 4, 2024. The AGC then commenced the present reciprocal discipline proceeding, seeking disbarment in New York.

IV. Legal Framework: Reciprocal Discipline in New York

A. 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) – Grounds to Resist Reciprocal Discipline

Under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b), when an attorney has been disciplined in another jurisdiction, New York will impose reciprocal discipline unless the respondent proves one of three narrow defenses:

Lack of due process in the foreign proceeding – specifically, a deprivation of notice or opportunity to be heard.
Infirmity of proof – that the record from the foreign jurisdiction does not adequately support the findings of misconduct.
Non‑equivalent misconduct – that the conduct for which the attorney was disciplined elsewhere would not constitute misconduct in New York.

The Court cites Matter of Milara, 194 AD3d 108, 110 (1st Dept 2021), for this framework, which has become the standard articulation of the reciprocal discipline defenses in the First Department.

B. 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) – Duty to Self‑Report

22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) requires any New York attorney who is disciplined in another jurisdiction (including federal tribunals) to:

Promptly notify the appropriate Appellate Division and the Attorney Grievance Committee of such discipline; and
Provide a copy of the order of discipline.

Hernandez’s failure to do so is not merely a procedural oversight; it is itself a separate act of misconduct and a significant aggravating factor when New York determines what sanction to impose.

V. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Rejection of All 1240.13(b) Defenses

The Court concludes that “none of the aforementioned enumerated defenses are available to respondent.” Specifically:

Due Process/Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard:
- Hernandez was served with the Texas complaints.
- He appeared at the evidentiary hearings.
- He was represented by counsel and testified.
These facts foreclose any due process challenge to the Texas proceedings.
Infirmity of Proof:
The Court notes that the Texas Evidentiary Panel’s findings “are sufficiently supported by the record.” The Opinion refers to:
- Clients’ testimony that they hired Hernandez’s firm, believed he was managing their cases, and did not know who Magnuson was.
- Retainer agreements naming only Hernandez’s firm and omitting any fee‑sharing terms or co‑counsel disclosures.
- Evidence that Hernandez himself approved the use of these retainer forms and established the “virtual law practice” arrangement.
Equivalence of Misconduct in New York:
The Court explicitly maps the Texas misconduct to New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0), finding that Hernandez’s conduct would violate:
- Rule 1.3(b), 1.3(c) – Diligence: patterns of neglect and failure to attend to client matters.
- Rule 1.4(a)(3), (a)(4), 1.4(b) – Communication: failure to keep clients reasonably informed and to adequately explain matters.
- Rule 1.5(g)(1), (g)(2) – Division of Fees: improper fee splitting without client written informed consent, without proportional services, and without joint responsibility.
- Rule 1.15(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4) – Safekeeping Property: failure to promptly deliver client funds or property and mishandling of client property upon termination.
- Rule 1.16(e) – Terminating Representation: failure to take reasonably practicable steps to protect clients when representation ends (e.g., not returning files or unearned fees).
- Rule 5.1(b), 5.1(d) – Responsibilities of Partners and Supervisory Lawyers: ordering, encouraging, or permitting subordinate lawyers to violate the rules, and failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure conformity.
This equivalence undercuts any argument that Texas’s standards are materially different from New York’s for this type of misconduct.

B. Treatment of Mitigation and the “Blame Magnuson” Argument

Hernandez argued in mitigation that:

He practiced law for over 20 years without prior discipline.
He acted promptly once he became aware of Magnuson’s misconduct.
Magnuson allegedly absconded with firm funds and disappeared.

The AGC countered, and the Court’s reasoning aligns with the AGC’s position, that:

Clients testified that:
- They retained Hernandez’s firm, not Magnuson.
- They understood Hernandez to be managing the firm and their cases.
- They were unaware of Magnuson or his role.
Retainer agreements signed by the complainants named only Hernandez’s firm.
Hernandez himself testified that he:
- Entered into a “virtual law practice” arrangement with Magnuson.
- Approved the use of the retainer forms that created attorney–client relationships solely with his own firm.

Thus, Hernandez’s attempt to shift blame to Magnuson is inconsistent with:

His role as firm owner and supervising attorney.
Clients’ understanding of who represented them.
The content of the retainer agreements and practice arrangements he approved.

The Court further notes the AGC’s argument that Hernandez’s failure to self‑report four separate disciplinary events (Texas suspension, Texas disbarment, BIA disbarment, New Mexico disbarment) is a powerful aggravating factor, not a neutral oversight.

C. Deference to Foreign Sanctions and Choice of New York Sanction

The Opinion reiterates what it calls the “general rule”:

As a general rule, this Court defers to the sanction imposed by the jurisdiction in which the charges were originally brought because the foreign jurisdiction has the greatest interest in fashioning sanctions for misconduct.

The Court cites:

Matter of Milara, 194 AD3d 108 (1st Dept 2021).
Matter of Tabacco, 171 AD3d 163 (1st Dept 2019).
Matter of Blumenthal, 165 AD3d 85 (1st Dept 2018).

Those cases collectively stand for the proposition that, absent compelling reasons to deviate, the First Department will mirror the discipline imposed elsewhere. The rationale includes:

Respect for the primary jurisdiction where the misconduct occurred.
Consistency of sanctions across jurisdictions to avoid forum shopping or “disciplinary arbitrage.”
Administrative efficiency—New York need not re‑try the entire case if the foreign process was fair and the misconduct translatable to New York rules.

The Court also notes that disbarment here is:

Commensurate with the discipline imposed in Texas; and
“In general accord with precedent involving arguably comparable misconduct,” citing:
- Matter of Nguyen, 241 AD3d 95 (1st Dept 2025).
- Matter of Tarter, 156 AD3d 157 (1st Dept 2017).
- Matter of Sirkin, 88 AD3d 165 (1st Dept 2011).
- Matter of Anschell, 11 AD3d 56 (1st Dept 2004).

While the Opinion does not describe the facts of these cases, the citation shows that:

New York has consistently imposed disbarment for patterns of client neglect, mishandling client money or property, fee misconduct, and supervisory failures.
The Court sees Hernandez’s conduct as comfortably within the range of conduct that has historically warranted disbarment rather than a lesser sanction such as suspension.

VI. Supervisory Liability and “Virtual Law Offices”

A. Supervisory Duties Under New York Rules 5.1(b) and 5.1(d)

New York Rules of Professional Conduct 5.1(b) and 5.1(d) govern the duties of partners and supervising attorneys. In essence, they require:

Reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in place measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Rules.
Responsibility for another lawyer’s violation if the supervising lawyer:
- Orders or knowingly ratifies the conduct; or
- Knows of the conduct at a time when it could be prevented or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action.

By mapping Texas Rule 5.01(a) to New York Rules 5.1(b) and 5.1(d), the Court makes clear that:

The duty to supervise applies even in non‑traditional practice arrangements such as “virtual law offices.”
Labeling co‑counsel as “associated outside attorneys” does not insulate the primary firm owner from responsibility when:
- The client believes they are hiring the firm.
- Retainer agreements identify only the firm and omit the outside attorney.
- The supervising attorney sets up, approves, and benefits from the arrangement.

B. Virtual Law Practice as No Safe Harbor

Although the Opinion does not adopt a special rule for “virtual law offices,” its application of the existing rules makes a practical point:

A “virtual” structure does not dilute or distribute ethical responsibility in a way that shields the principal attorney.
The client’s perspective is critical: if the client reasonably believes they are represented by Hernandez’s firm, then Hernandez remains responsible for the adequacy of representation and for compliance with all fee and supervision rules.
“Virtual” status does not reduce:
- Obligations of diligence.
- Obligations of communication.
- Duties regarding safekeeping property and return of files/funds.
- Compliance with fee‑splitting requirements.

In effect, Matter of Hernandez warns New York attorneys that:

Business models and technological arrangements (such as virtual offices) do not change the core of professional responsibility; supervisory duties and client‑protection rules remain fully applicable.

VII. Fee-Splitting, Client Consent, and Malpractice Settlements

A. Improper Division of Fees

The Texas panel found violations of several parts of Texas Rule 1.04 related to fee division. New York’s analog is Rule 1.5(g), which the Court cites as the violated standard.

Under New York Rule 1.5(g), lawyers in different firms may divide fees only if:

The division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer, or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation.
The client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing.
The total fee is not excessive.

Hernandez’s arrangement failed in multiple respects:

No written disclosure of:
- The involvement of outside attorneys.
- The proposed fee division.

before association or referral.

Lack of proportionality or clear joint responsibility.

By recognizing that this conduct violates Rule 1.5(g)(1) and (g)(2), the Court reinforces New York’s insistence that:

Transparency and informed consent are mandatory in fee‑sharing.
Clients are entitled to know who is representing them and how their fees are being divided.

B. Improper Settlement of a Malpractice Claim

The Texas panel also found a violation of Rule 1.08(g) (Texas), involving settlement of a client’s liability claim against Hernandez. While the Opinion does not expressly list New York Rule 1.8(h), the conduct described is conceptually similar: a lawyer may not:

Settle a claim or potential claim for malpractice liability with a client or former client who is unrepresented,
Unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking independent legal counsel and is given a reasonable opportunity to do so.

The Texas panel found Hernandez:

Settled such a liability claim.
Did not ensure the client had independent representation.
Did not advise the client in writing that independent counsel was appropriate.

This aspect of the case highlights New York’s parallel concern that:

The power imbalance between attorney and client is especially acute when the lawyer’s own liability is at issue.
Independent advice and written warnings are essential to prevent overreaching.

VIII. Failure to Self‑Report as Aggravating Factor

Hernandez’s failure to self‑report is not merely a technical lapse; the Opinion records the AGC’s position that this omission is a significant aggravating factor.

The Court notes that Hernandez did not report:

The Texas suspension.
The Texas disbarments (initial and final orders).
The BIA disbarment.
The New Mexico disbarment.

Instead, New York authorities learned of these proceedings only because the Texas State Bar notified OCA, which in turn notified the AGC. This undermines:

The candor expected of attorneys to their licensing courts.
The efficiency and integrity of the attorney disciplinary system, which depends on prompt and honest self‑reporting to function effectively across jurisdictions.

By treating non‑reporting as aggravating in a reciprocal discipline case, the Opinion sends a clear message that:

Attorneys admitted in New York must proactively disclose any significant discipline imposed elsewhere; failure to do so can turn a serious matter into one warranting the most severe sanction.

IX. Complex Legal Concepts Simplified

A. Reciprocal Discipline

“Reciprocal discipline” occurs when one jurisdiction (here, New York) imposes a disciplinary sanction that mirrors or corresponds to a sanction already imposed in another jurisdiction (here, Texas, and secondarily BIA and New Mexico).

The logic:

Attorney misconduct typically affects clients and courts in multiple places when the lawyer is multi‑jurisdictionally admitted.
To maintain consistent professional standards and protect the public, other jurisdictions usually recognize and enforce the original discipline, unless there was some grave unfairness or mismatch.

B. Nunc Pro Tunc

“Nunc pro tunc” is Latin for “now for then.” When a court makes an order effective nunc pro tunc to an earlier date, it is:

Issuing the order now but giving it retroactive effect to that earlier date.

In this case:

The Texas disbarment was made effective nunc pro tunc to July 10, 2024.
The BIA disbarment was made effective nunc pro tunc to October 10, 2024.

C. Supervisory Liability

A supervising attorney (or law firm partner) is not only responsible for personal acts, but also for:

Establishing systems and policies that reasonably ensure all lawyers in the firm follow the rules.
Monitoring subordinate lawyers to prevent misconduct.
Taking corrective actions when misconduct is discovered.

If a supervising lawyer:

Directs or knowingly approves wrongful conduct, or
Knows of misconduct but does nothing to stop or mitigate it,

that supervising lawyer can be held personally responsible for the violations. Matter of Hernandez is a clear example of this principle being applied to a “virtual law office.”

D. Safekeeping Property and Terminating Representation

Rules 1.15 and 1.16(e) in New York address:

Safekeeping Property (Rule 1.15) – Lawyers must:
- Promptly notify clients of receipt of funds/property.
- Promptly deliver what clients or third parties are entitled to receive.
- Maintain records and segregate client funds from personal/firm funds.
Terminating Representation (Rule 1.16(e)) – Upon termination, lawyers must:
- Take steps reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests.
- Return papers and property to which the client is entitled.
- Refund any unearned portion of a fee.

Hernandez’s failures in these areas—particularly not returning documents and funds, and not protecting clients upon termination—are core professional lapses that go to the heart of client protection.

X. Impact and Future Implications

A. Multi‑Jurisdictional Practitioners

For lawyers admitted in multiple jurisdictions, Matter of Hernandez reinforces several points:

Discipline in one jurisdiction will almost certainly ripple across other jurisdictions, including:
- State bars.
- Federal courts.
- Administrative tribunals (e.g., immigration practice before the BIA and DHS).
Self‑reporting is mandatory under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d); silence will be treated as an aggravating factor.
Arguments that misconduct was primarily in another jurisdiction, under another state’s rules, will carry little weight where the conduct clearly violates equivalent New York rules.

B. Virtual Law Offices and Non‑Traditional Firm Structures

As legal practice moves toward distributed teams, remote work, and “of counsel” or co‑counsel arrangements, Matter of Hernandez serves as a caution that:

The principal lawyer remains accountable for:
- Fee arrangements and their disclosure.
- Client communication and case progress.
- Supervision of all lawyers working under the firm’s banner, however styled.
Clients’ reasonable understanding of who is representing them, and under what terms, is paramount.
Digital or contractual separation between firms does not automatically reduce ethical obligations.

C. Future Reciprocal Discipline Cases in New York

This Opinion continues and strengthens a coherent line of First Department authority:

New York will typically mirror foreign discipline unless:
- There was clear unfairness in the foreign process; or
- The conduct is not misconduct under New York’s own rules.
Long, previously unblemished careers may be considered in mitigation, but will not overcome:
- Systematic neglect across multiple clients.
- Serious fee and trust account violations.
- Supervisory failures and non‑reporting.
Reciprocal discipline will likely be swift and severe where the foreign jurisdiction has already imposed disbarment for multi‑client, multi‑rule violations.

XI. Conclusion

Matter of Hernandez is an important reaffirmation of three core principles in New York attorney discipline:

Deference to Foreign Discipline – When another jurisdiction, after a fair process, finds substantial misconduct and imposes disbarment, the First Department will generally do the same, absent the narrow 1240.13(b) defenses.
Non‑Delegable Supervisory Responsibility – The owner or managing attorney of a firm, even a “virtual” one, bears ultimate responsibility for:
- Ensuring diligent and competent client representation.
- Proper fee arrangements and disclosure.
- Compliance with safekeeping‑of‑property and termination‑of‑representation duties.
- Supervising subordinate or associated lawyers.
Mandatory Self‑Reporting – Failure to notify New York of discipline in other jurisdictions (including federal bodies) not only violates a procedural rule but also constitutes an aggravating factor supporting the most serious sanctions.

The Opinion’s broader message is clear: regardless of geography, practice structure, or technology, New York expects its attorneys to maintain high standards of diligence, transparency, client protection, and candor to the courts. Attorneys who engage in systemic neglect, fee misconduct, supervisory failures, and concealment of foreign discipline face a high risk of reciprocal disbarment.