Matter of Lewis — Interim Suspension for Noncooperation with Attorney Grievance Investigations (EUO/Subpoena) Despite Purported “Resignation”

1. Introduction

In Matter of Lewis, 2026 NY Slip Op 03074 (App Div 1st Dept May 14, 2026) (per curiam), the Appellate Division, First Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s (AGC) motion for an immediate interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3). The court’s action was driven not by an adjudication of the underlying alleged misconduct (the filing of a draft federal submission containing citations to non-existent cases), but by the respondent’s refusal to cooperate with the AGC investigation—specifically, her failure to appear for an examination under oath (EUO) and failure to produce subpoenaed records.

The matter arose after a Texas immigration attorney complained that respondent—retained through an online freelance platform to draft a response to an order to show cause in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico—produced a draft “replete with citations to non-existent cases,” which that court attributed to “hallucinations by ChatGPT or a similar artificial intelligence program.” After the complainant was sanctioned, the AGC opened an investigation. Respondent then declined an agreed EUO date, refused to accept email service of a subpoena, asserted the investigation was discriminatory, and attempted to “resign” without filing a proper application under the governing rules.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The First Department held that the AGC met its burden to show conduct “immediately threatening the public interest” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) based on:

  • Respondent’s default in responding to a subpoena/notice to appear for an EUO (22 NYCRR 1240.9[a][1]); and
  • Respondent’s failure to comply with lawful demands of the AGC in an investigation (22 NYCRR 1240.9[a][3]).

Because the record showed respondent refused to appear and produce documents as directed by judicial subpoena, and she did not oppose the motion, the court ordered her suspended effective immediately and until further order. The order also imposed standard restrictions under Judiciary Law § 90, required compliance with 22 NYCRR 1240.15 (rules for suspended/disbarred attorneys), directed return of any OCA secure pass, and advised that respondent may seek a post-suspension hearing under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(c) within 20 days of service.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The court anchored its decision in a line of First Department cases recognizing that noncooperation itself—especially ignoring subpoenas and investigative demands—can justify interim suspension as an immediate threat to the public interest.

  • Matter of Kaufman, 238 AD3d 5 (1st Dept 2025)
    The court cited Kaufman as direct support for the proposition that interim suspension is warranted where an attorney fails to cooperate with an AGC investigation and does not appear for an EUO or produce demanded records. By quoting to “238 AD3d at 8,” the Lewis court emphasized that the First Department treats refusal to participate in compelled investigative steps as sufficiently serious to trigger 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) without waiting for final discipline.
  • Matter of Grant, 224 AD3d 1 (1st Dept 2024)
    Grant reinforced that interim suspension may be imposed where a respondent defaults and fails to comply with lawful demands in a pending investigation. The Lewis opinion’s reference to “224 AD3d at 5” signals that the court views investigative obstruction as conduct that jeopardizes the disciplinary system’s ability to protect the public and courts.
  • Matter of Hooker, 229 AD3d 22 (1st Dept 2024)
    Hooker is cited alongside the other decisions as part of an established pattern: the First Department will employ interim suspension to address a respondent’s disregard of the Committee’s investigatory authority, including subpoena-backed EUOs and document demands.
  • Matter of Naccarato, 222 AD3d 32 (1st Dept 2023)
    Naccarato further supports the same doctrinal point: interim suspension is an available and appropriate remedy where the respondent’s noncompliance undermines the Committee’s inquiry and thereby threatens the public interest.

B. Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds through a structured application of the disciplinary rules rather than fact-finding on the underlying “AI hallucinations” episode:

  1. Jurisdiction: Although admitted in the Second Department, respondent maintained a registered address in the First Department, giving that court jurisdiction under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.7(a)(2).
  2. Triggering standard—“immediately threatening the public interest”: Under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a), the court may impose an interim suspension when the respondent’s conduct meets that threshold; the rule specifies that the finding may be based on default in responding to a subpoenaed appearance (1240.9[a][1]) or failure to comply with lawful demands (1240.9[a][3]).
  3. Record of noncompliance: The AGC documented (i) an agreed EUO date, (ii) respondent’s refusal to appear, (iii) her refusal to consent to email service, (iv) her “cease and desist” directive, (v) the issuance of a judicial subpoena directing appearance and production, and (vi) respondent’s failure to appear after declining the Teams invitation.
  4. Attempted “resignation” does not neutralize the investigation: The court noted respondent referenced 22 NYCRR 1240.10(a)(2) (resignation while an investigation or proceeding is pending) but did not submit an appropriate application. In effect, the opinion treats the purported resignation correspondence and affidavit as legally insufficient to halt the Committee’s compulsory process.
  5. Unopposed motion: Respondent submitted no response to the motion, leaving the AGC’s factual showing unrebutted. The court nonetheless grounded relief in the documented defaults and the rule’s express authorization.

The reasoning reflects an institutional concern: the disciplinary system cannot function if an attorney can evade compelled investigation by refusing EUOs, ignoring subpoenas, and asserting unilateral “resignation” outside the rule-prescribed mechanism.

C. Impact

1) Reinforcement of a strict cooperation norm. Matter of Lewis strengthens the First Department’s message (consistent with Matter of Kaufman, Matter of Grant, Matter of Hooker, and Matter of Naccarato) that investigatory noncooperation is itself an immediate public-interest threat warranting interim suspension.

2) Limits on “resignation” as an exit strategy. The decision underscores that resignation in the face of an investigation is governed by 22 NYCRR 1240.10 and requires a proper application; informal declarations of resignation will not deprive the court/AGC of authority, nor excuse noncompliance with subpoenas and demands.

3) Practical consequences for remote/freelance practice and AI-assisted drafting. Although the suspension rests on noncooperation, the case’s origin—court-sanctioned filing of fake authorities attributed to AI—signals increased disciplinary sensitivity to competence and candor risks in AI-assisted legal work, particularly when provided through freelance platforms and filed without adequate verification.

4) Procedural roadmap for interim relief. The opinion illustrates that, where the AGC builds a documented record of subpoena service attempts, warnings, and missed EUO appearances, interim suspension is readily obtainable under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Interim suspension (22 NYCRR 1240.9): A temporary suspension imposed before final discipline, used when a lawyer’s conduct poses an immediate threat to the public interest. It is preventive, not a final adjudication of all alleged misconduct.
  • Examination Under Oath (EUO): A formal investigative testimony session where the attorney must answer questions under oath, similar in function to a deposition in civil litigation.
  • Judicial subpoena: A court-backed command to appear and/or produce documents. Ignoring it is treated as a serious breach because it frustrates lawful process.
  • “Default” under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1): Failure to respond or appear when directed for an interview/EUO, including when compelled by subpoena.
  • “Lawful demand” under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3): A valid request by the AGC for information or documents in an investigation; refusal can independently support interim suspension.
  • Resignation while an investigation is pending (22 NYCRR 1240.10[a][2]): Not a unilateral act by email; it is a regulated process requiring a proper submission/application to the court.
  • 22 NYCRR 1240.15 obligations: Rules governing the conduct of suspended/disbarred attorneys (e.g., cessation of practice, notifications, and related compliance steps).

5. Conclusion

Matter of Lewis establishes (and applies) a clear operational rule in First Department discipline practice: an attorney who refuses to appear for a subpoenaed EUO or refuses to comply with the AGC’s lawful investigative demands may be immediately suspended under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), even before the underlying misconduct is adjudicated. The decision also confirms that an attorney cannot short-circuit an investigation through an informal “resignation” that does not comply with 22 NYCRR 1240.10. In the broader legal context, the case reflects heightened regulatory concern with both (i) maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary process through enforced cooperation and (ii) the downstream professional risks associated with unverified AI-assisted legal drafting.