Presumptive Disbarment in Reciprocal Discipline: The New York Rule after Matter of Nguyen (2025)

Introduction

On 17 June 2025 the Appellate Division, First Department, issued a per-curiam opinion in Matter of Nguyen, disbarring attorney Vy Thuan Nguyen from the practice of law in New York. The proceeding was initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) under the doctrine of “reciprocal discipline,” following Ms Nguyen’s disbarment in Texas for multiple ethical violations.

The central issue before the New York court was whether, and to what extent, it should replicate the sanction already imposed by the Texas authorities. In deciding to impose identical discipline—summary disbarment—the court articulated and reinforced a practical rule that will guide future reciprocal cases: when no statutory defense under 22 NYCRR 1240.13 is available or substantiated, the sanction imposed by the foreign jurisdiction will be adopted in New York in the ordinary course, with departure occurring only in “rare instances.”

Summary of the Judgment

The First Department granted the AGC’s motion for reciprocal discipline, struck Ms Nguyen’s name from the roll of attorneys in New York, and commanded her to desist from all legal practice. In reaching that outcome, the court found that:

Nguyen had notice and an opportunity to be heard in Texas.
The Texas record contained no infirmity of proof; witness testimony was credited over Nguyen’s.
The misconduct proven in Texas would violate parallel New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

Because none of the three statutory defenses under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) were available, the court deferred to the Texas sanction and ordered immediate disbarment.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The opinion rests heavily on prior First Department decisions, signalling continuity while sharpening the standard:

Matter of Milara, 194 A.D.3d 108 (2021) – Identified the three exclusive defenses in reciprocal proceedings.
Matter of Blumenthal, 165 A.D.3d 85 (2018) – Articulated the “significant weight” rule.
Matter of Jaffe, 78 A.D.3d 152 (2010) – Earlier statement of comity and deference.
Matter of Tustaniwsky, 204 A.D.3d 162 (2022) – Emphasised that departures from foreign sanctions are “rare.”
Older analogous disbarment cases: Sirkin (2011), Hatton (2007), Hovell (2007), Anschell (2004).

Collectively, these authorities created a doctrinal backdrop in which comity, uniformity, and public protection dominate the sanction calculus. Nguyen leverages these cases but goes further by describing the adoption of a foreign disbarment as the “appropriate sanction” nearly by default when no defense is raised.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three logical steps:

Jurisdiction. Because Nguyen’s business address was in the First Department, the court had “retained jurisdiction” under 22 NYCRR 1240.7(a)(2).
Statutory Defenses. The court walked through §1240.13(b)’s exclusive defenses and found them inapplicable. It expressly invoked the Texas panel’s credibility determinations to reject any “infirmity of proof.”
Sanction Selection. (a) The “general rule” of deference to foreign sanctions was recited.
(b) The court assessed whether this case was one of the “rare instances” warranting divergence and concluded it was not, citing parallel misconduct rules and aggravating factors such as a pattern of neglect, dishonesty, and prior discipline.
(c) As a policy matter, the court emphasised public confidence and the avoidance of inconsistent punishments.

3. Impact

Matter of Nguyen will likely have several ripple effects:

Higher Predictability. Attorneys disciplined elsewhere can expect identical discipline in New York unless they can prove a §1240.13 defense.
Burden Shifting. Nguyen’s failure to respond illustrates that silence or non-appearance virtually guarantees adoption of the foreign sanction.
Elevation of Comity. The opinion underscores interstate respect for disciplinary determinations, reducing forum-shopping incentives.
Guidance for Grievance Committees. The AGC now has a clarified mandate to seek matching sanctions, saving investigative resources.
Client Protection. The swift removal of lawyers who pose a continuing risk—especially those with multistate practices—is facilitated.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reciprocal Discipline: When a lawyer is sanctioned in one jurisdiction, other jurisdictions where the lawyer is admitted may impose the same or similar discipline, provided certain procedural safeguards are satisfied.
22 NYCRR 1240.13 Defenses: 1) lack of notice/opportunity to be heard, 2) infirmity of proof, 3) conduct not constituting misconduct in the second jurisdiction. If none apply, the foreign sanction is normally mirrored.
IOLTA Account: “Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts”—client funds must be held in these escrow accounts; misuse can be misconduct.
Disbarment vs. Suspension: Disbarment permanently removes the attorney’s license (though readmission is possible after many years), whereas suspension is temporary.
Comity: Legal principle that courts will respect and enforce the decisions of other jurisdictions, fostering uniformity and mutual trust.

Conclusion

Matter of Nguyen cements a practical rule of presumptive mirror-sanction in New York’s reciprocal discipline jurisprudence: absent a valid statutory defense, the foreign sanction will be adopted, including disbarment. The decision promotes interstate consistency, deters ethical shopping among jurisdictions, and enhances public confidence in the bar. Future respondents facing reciprocal proceedings must therefore be prepared to actively contest one of the three narrow defenses or expect an identical fate.