Reciprocal Discipline: New York May Disbar Where a Foreign Suspension Undershoots New York’s Sanction for Repeated Unauthorized Practice and Nonreporting

1. Introduction

Matter of Rys (2025 NY Slip Op 01582, 1st Dept Mar. 18, 2025) is a reciprocal-discipline decision in which the Appellate Division, First Department disbarred a New York attorney based on repeated New Jersey discipline—most recently a two-year New Jersey suspension for practicing law while suspended and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities.

The petitioner was the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department (AGC). The respondent, Laura M. Rys, appeared pro se but did not oppose the motion.

The key issues were (i) whether any statutory/regulatory defenses to reciprocal discipline applied under 22 NYCRR 1240.13, and (ii) what sanction New York should impose under Judiciary Law § 90(2) given the foreign jurisdiction’s sanction and the respondent’s broader disciplinary history, repeated defaults, and repeated failures to report out-of-state discipline as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The First Department granted the AGC’s unopposed motion for reciprocal discipline and ordered that respondent be disbarred effective immediately, notwithstanding that the latest New Jersey discipline was a two-year suspension. The Court held that none of the three recognized defenses to reciprocal discipline would have applied even if respondent had opposed the motion: she had notice and opportunity to be heard; proof was not infirm (including respondent’s admissions during the New Jersey investigation); and the conduct would constitute misconduct in New York as well (violations of Rules of Professional Conduct rules 5.5(a) and 8.4(d)).

In selecting the sanction, the Court reiterated that it generally accords significant weight to the original jurisdiction’s sanction, but will impose a more severe penalty when the foreign sanction substantially deviates from what New York would impose for the same misconduct. Given respondent’s repeated unauthorized practice, repeated defaults, and repeated nonreporting of foreign discipline, the Court concluded that disbarment was warranted and struck her name from the roll of attorneys.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

Matter of Milara, 194 AD3d 108 (1st Dept 2021)

  • Role in the opinion: The Court relied on Matter of Milara for two core propositions: (i) the articulation of the three defenses available in reciprocal discipline matters under 22 NYCRR 1240.13; and (ii) the general principle that New York gives significant weight to the sanction imposed in the charging jurisdiction.
  • Influence: Milara provides the doctrinal “gateway” for reciprocal discipline analysis: first test for defenses; if none apply, determine the appropriate New York sanction with deference—but not blind adherence—to the foreign jurisdiction’s penalty.

Matter of Gotimer, 219 AD3d 7 (1st Dept 2023)

  • Role in the opinion: Cited to support that the misconduct found in New Jersey—unauthorized practice—would also constitute misconduct in New York under RPC rule 5.5(a) and rule 8.4(d).
  • Influence: The citation reinforces the “same-misconduct” element of reciprocal discipline: New York is not merely enforcing foreign judgments; it is confirming that the underlying conduct violates New York’s professional standards as well.

Matter of Autry, 177 AD3d 44 (1st Dept 2019)

  • Role in the opinion: Like Gotimer, cited as authority that the charged behavior (particularly unauthorized practice and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) would be actionable misconduct in New York.
  • Influence: Supports the Court’s rejection of the third defense under 22 NYCRR 1240.13: that the foreign-jurisdiction misconduct “does not constitute misconduct in this state.”

Matter of Tabacco, 171 AD3d 163 (1st Dept 2019)

  • Role in the opinion: Cited with Milara for the general proposition that the First Department gives significant weight to the original jurisdiction’s sanction.
  • Influence: Frames the Court’s approach as starting from deference to the foreign sanction—so that any upward adjustment (here, to disbarment) is justified as an exception grounded in New York’s own sanctioning norms.

Matter of Pierre, 154 AD3d 194 (1st Dept 2017), lv denied 31 NY3d 1043 (2018), cert denied 586 US 850 (2018)

  • Role in the opinion: Supplies the key sanctioning principle: when the sanction imposed in the original jurisdiction “substantially deviates from the more severe penalty New York would impose,” New York may impose the more severe penalty.
  • Influence: This case is the decision’s decisive lever. New Jersey imposed a two-year suspension for the latest episode, but New York evaluated the conduct and aggravation (repeat unauthorized practice, serial defaults, repeated nonreporting) and concluded that the New York baseline for such conduct is more severe.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

  1. Threshold showing of foreign discipline and procedural posture. The AGC demonstrated that respondent was disciplined by a foreign jurisdiction (New Jersey), including the April 8, 2024 order suspending her for two years for practicing law while suspended and failing to cooperate. Respondent did not oppose the motion.
  2. Reciprocal discipline defenses under 22 NYCRR 1240.13. The Court applied the tripartite defense framework:
    • Due process (notice/opportunity to be heard): The record showed multiple notices by certified and regular mail, plus publication in the New Jersey Law Journal, warning that default would result in deemed admissions and discipline. Thus, no due process deprivation.
    • Infirmity of proof: The Court noted that, during the OAE investigation, respondent admitted practicing law while suspended—supporting the reliability of the factual predicate.
    • No New York analogue: The conduct would constitute misconduct in New York, specifically under RPC rule 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice) and rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), supported by Matter of Gotimer and Matter of Autry.
  3. Sanction selection: deference, then adjustment where appropriate. The Court acknowledged its usual practice of giving significant weight to the originating jurisdiction’s sanction (Matter of Milara; Matter of Tabacco). It then invoked Matter of Pierre to justify upward departure where New York would impose a materially more severe penalty for the same misconduct.
  4. Aggravating pattern supporting disbarment. The Court emphasized a pattern rather than an isolated lapse:
    • Repeated unauthorized practice in New Jersey while administratively ineligible and later while suspended;
    • Defaults in multiple New Jersey disciplinary proceedings;
    • Defaults in New York reciprocal proceedings;
    • Three failures to report New Jersey discipline to New York authorities, violating 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d).
    These factors supported the conclusion that the foreign suspension “substantially deviates” from what New York would impose, warranting disbarment.

3.3. Impact

  • Reinforces robust enforcement of 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d) reporting duties. The Court treated repeated nonreporting as a serious aggravating circumstance, especially when coupled with repeated discipline and defaults.
  • Signals that repeated unauthorized practice plus noncooperation can justify disbarment in reciprocal cases. Even though the latest foreign sanction was a term suspension, the First Department showed willingness to impose disbarment when the record reflects persistent disregard for licensing restrictions and disciplinary oversight.
  • Clarifies the “weight, not binding” role of foreign sanctions. The decision operationalizes the Pierre principle: New York’s sanctioning norms can control where the foreign jurisdiction’s sanction is materially out of step with New York’s assessment of seriousness and risk.
  • Practical consequence for multijurisdictional practitioners. Administrative ineligibility (CLE/FCP/IOLTA-type obligations) can cascade into disciplinary findings—especially if the attorney continues to practice or fails to engage the disciplinary process—creating reciprocal exposure in New York.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Reciprocal discipline: A process by which New York imposes discipline based on another jurisdiction’s discipline, after confirming basic fairness and that the conduct would be misconduct in New York.
  • Default in disciplinary proceedings: If an attorney fails to answer or appear, allegations may be deemed admitted and discipline may be imposed without a merits hearing.
  • Administrative ineligibility vs. disciplinary suspension: Administrative ineligibility often stems from noncompliance (e.g., fees, CLE, trust-account requirements) and can render practice unauthorized. A disciplinary suspension is a formal sanction imposed for professional misconduct.
  • IOLTA: “Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts,” a regulated system for handling client funds. Failure to maintain proper trust accounts can trigger serious discipline.
  • 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d): New York’s rule requiring an attorney to report out-of-state discipline to New York authorities—nonreporting itself can be professional misconduct and an aggravating factor.
  • RPC rule 5.5(a) and 8.4(d): Rule 5.5(a) prohibits unauthorized practice; rule 8.4(d) prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice—both commonly implicated when attorneys practice while suspended/ineligible or disregard disciplinary directives.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Rys underscores that reciprocal discipline in New York is not a mechanical adoption of the foreign sanction. After confirming that no 22 NYCRR 1240.13 defenses apply, the First Department may—and here did—impose a more severe penalty than the originating jurisdiction when the foreign sanction substantially deviates from what New York would impose, consistent with Matter of Pierre.

The decision’s central takeaway is practical and cautionary: repeated unauthorized practice, repeated defaults, and repeated failures to report foreign discipline can transform a term suspension elsewhere into disbarment in New York, reflecting New York’s independent judgment about attorney fitness and public protection.