Reciprocal Discipline in New York: Failure to Report Foreign Sanctions as an Aggravator and Reinstatement Conditioned on Foreign Reinstatement (Matter of Lento)

1. Introduction

Matter of Lento (Appellate Division, Third Department, Sept. 10, 2026) addresses New York’s reciprocal-discipline framework when an attorney has been sanctioned in multiple other jurisdictions. The respondent, admitted in New York in 2019 and also admitted in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, faced discipline arising from nine separate client matters across three jurisdictions: a five-year suspension in Pennsylvania (after a seven-day hearing), revocation of the privilege to practice in Virginia (based on holding himself out as providing legal services there), and an initial indefinite suspension later converted to a two-year suspension in New Jersey (stemming partly from Pennsylvania discipline and partly from a separate consent discipline matter).

The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC) moved to impose discipline in New York under Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 and Rules of App Div, 3d Dept (22 NYCRR) § 806.13. The key issues were (i) whether the respondent could establish any recognized defense to reciprocal discipline under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(b), and (ii) what sanction New York should impose, including whether aggravating factors warranted a tailored sanction and conditions on reinstatement.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Department granted AGC’s motion and imposed a three-year suspension, effective immediately, with standard restrictions applicable to suspended attorneys (22 NYCRR § 1240.16) and compliance requirements (22 NYCRR § 1240.15). Critically, the Court conditioned reinstatement in New York on the respondent’s reinstatement in Pennsylvania.

The Court held the respondent failed to establish any defense under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(b)—no due process deprivation, no infirmity of proof, and no showing that the underlying conduct would not constitute misconduct in New York. The Court further treated the respondent’s attempt to relitigate foreign disciplinary findings as improper in this reciprocal forum.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

The Opinion is heavily grounded in the Third Department’s reciprocal-discipline line of cases, using prior decisions to (a) define the available defenses, (b) reject efforts to re-try foreign matters, (c) confirm that meaningful participation defeats “due process” and “infirmity” defenses, and (d) structure sanction selection and aggravation analysis.

A. Defenses under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(b): framing and application

  • Matter of Beckett, 241 AD3d 1034 (3d Dept 2025): cited for the procedural point that, in response to an AGC application with proof of foreign discipline, the respondent may file an affidavit asserting the three enumerated defenses under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(b).
  • Matter of Durkin, 220 AD3d 1046 (3d Dept 2023) and Matter of Hahn, 167 AD3d 1140 (3d Dept 2018): cited for the general proposition that where defenses are not established, reciprocal discipline is appropriate.

B. “Meaningful participation” as a practical bar to due process/infirmity claims

The Court emphasized that the respondent “meaningfully participated” in the out-of-state proceedings, which undercuts claims that he lacked notice/opportunity to be heard or that proof was infirm. This conclusion was supported by a string of cases:

  • Matter of Cimino, 249 AD3d 1475 (3d Dept 2026)
  • Matter of Yanowitch, 244 AD3d 1701 (3d Dept 2025)
  • Matter of White, 243 AD3d 1112 (3d Dept 2025)
  • Matter of Durkin, 220 AD3d 1046 (3d Dept 2023)
  • Matter of Spark, 196 AD3d 826 (3d Dept 2021)
  • Matter of Hoines, 185 AD3d 1349 (3d Dept 2020)

Collectively, these citations reflect a consistent Third Department approach: where the attorney actively engaged the foreign process, reciprocal proceedings are not the venue to repackage dissatisfaction with the foreign tribunal as “due process” or “proof” defects.

C. Attacks on foreign standards of proof and attempts to relitigate

  • Office of Disciplinary Counsel v Anonymous, 331 A3d 523 (Pa Sup Ct 2025): relied upon to reject the respondent’s argument that Pennsylvania used an improper standard of proof.
  • Matter of Campbell, 203 AD3d 1380 (3d Dept 2022): cited for the principle that attempts to relitigate issues already decided in foreign disciplinary proceedings are improper in the New York reciprocal-discipline forum.

D. Conclusory submissions are insufficient

  • Matter of Adams, 204 AD3d 1300 (3d Dept 2022)
  • Matter of Rosenberg, 202 AD3d 1271 (3d Dept 2022)
  • Matter of Spark, 196 AD3d 826 (3d Dept 2021)

These cases supported the Court’s refusal to entertain the respondent’s “conclusory and unsworn” assertion that reciprocal discipline was unwarranted—highlighting that respondents must make a legally cognizable showing within the defined defenses, not simply argue fairness at large.

E. Sanction selection: not automatic parity, but often aligned absent factors

  • Matter of Tabe, 233 AD3d 1166 (3d Dept 2024): cited for the proposition that New York is not obligated to impose the same sanction as the foreign tribunal.
  • Matter of Lee, 238 AD3d 1316 (3d Dept 2025): quoted for the sanction’s purposes—protecting the public, maintaining honor and integrity of the profession, and deterring similar misconduct—consistent with 22 NYCRR § 1240.8(b)(2).
  • Matter of Weiner, 251 AD3d 1336 (3d Dept 2026): cited for the typical practice of imposing the same sanction as the foreign jurisdiction unless aggravating or mitigating factors warrant departure.

F. Aggravation: failure to report foreign discipline

  • Matter of Chu, 250 AD3d 1526 (3d Dept 2026)
  • Matter of Radshaw, 213 AD3d 1193 (3d Dept 2023)

These citations reinforce that an attorney’s failure to comply with reporting duties under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(d) is itself aggravating in the sanction calculus, because it impedes regulatory oversight and timely protection of the public.

G. Comparable sanction outcomes and reinstatement conditions

  • Matter of Altman, 227 AD3d 1217 (3d Dept 2024)
  • Matter of Donohue, 171 AD3d 1295 (3d Dept 2019)
  • Matter of McCarthy, 166 AD3d 1465 (3d Dept 2018)

These authorities supported the three-year suspension as a proportionate response to serious misconduct.

  • Matter of Durkin, 220 AD3d 1046 (3d Dept 2023)
  • Matter of Hankes, 210 AD3d 1282 (3d Dept 2022)
  • Matter of McCarthy, 166 AD3d 1465 (3d Dept 2018)
  • Matter of Sicklinger, 166 AD3d 1205 (3d Dept 2018)

These cases supported the additional step taken here: conditioning reinstatement in New York on reinstatement in another key disciplining jurisdiction (Pennsylvania), thereby aligning New York’s gatekeeping decision with the jurisdiction that imposed the most substantial discipline and adjudicated multiple matters after extensive process.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

  1. Burden shifting under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(a): once AGC provided proof of foreign discipline, the respondent bore the burden to demonstrate why discipline should not be imposed in New York.
  2. Strictly cabined defenses under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(b): the respondent could only prevail by establishing one or more of: (i) lack of due process (notice/opportunity to be heard), (ii) infirmity of proof, or (iii) non-equivalence of misconduct in New York. The Court found none were established.
  3. Process-based objections rejected: “meaningful participation” in the foreign proceedings defeated claimed due process and proof infirmities, and a separate attack on Pennsylvania’s burden/standard was rejected by reference to Office of Disciplinary Counsel v Anonymous.
  4. Forum limitation: reciprocal proceedings are not appeals of foreign disciplinary decisions; therefore attempts to relitigate factual or legal determinations were rejected as improper (Matter of Campbell).
  5. Sanction determination under 22 NYCRR § 1240.8(b)(2): while parity with foreign sanctions is common, the Court emphasized its independent obligation to craft a sanction that protects the public, preserves professional integrity, and deters.
  6. Aggravation without mitigation: the Court credited multiple aggravators—pattern of misconduct affecting multiple clients, failure to report foreign discipline under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(d), delayed restitution until claims were filed with the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, and credibility findings against respondent— and noted respondent offered no mitigating evidence, instead minimizing the misconduct.
  7. Outcome: three-year suspension in New York, with reinstatement conditioned on Pennsylvania reinstatement.

3.3. Impact

Operationally, Matter of Lento underscores three practical rules for New York reciprocal discipline:

  • Participation forecloses collateral attacks: attorneys who fully litigate or otherwise meaningfully participate in foreign proceedings will face a steep barrier to claiming due process deprivation or infirmity of proof in New York.
  • Reporting obligations matter: failure to report foreign discipline under 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(d) is not a technicality; it is treated as an aggravating factor that can worsen the New York sanction analysis.
  • Reinstatement may be tethered to the primary disciplining jurisdiction: conditioning reinstatement on reinstatement in Pennsylvania reflects New York’s willingness to synchronize readmission with the jurisdiction that developed the most extensive record and/or imposed the most significant discipline.

In future reciprocal cases involving multi-state misconduct, the decision supports more assertive New York gatekeeping where: (i) there is a demonstrated pattern across clients and jurisdictions, (ii) the attorney fails to self-report discipline, and/or (iii) the attorney seeks to use the New York proceeding to retry foreign determinations.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Reciprocal discipline
A streamlined process where New York imposes discipline based on established discipline in another jurisdiction, unless the attorney proves a limited set of defenses. It is not a “second appeal” of the foreign decision.
22 NYCRR § 1240.13(b) defenses
The only recognized grounds to resist reciprocal discipline: (1) lack of due process in the foreign proceeding, (2) infirmity of proof, or (3) the conduct would not be misconduct in New York.
“Meaningful participation”
If an attorney had notice and actively engaged (e.g., appeared, presented evidence, contested issues), New York will typically reject claims that the foreign process was unfair or unsupported.
Aggravating vs. mitigating factors
Facts that justify a harsher (aggravating) or more lenient (mitigating) sanction. Here, aggravators included pattern of misconduct, non-reporting, delayed restitution, and adverse credibility findings.
Conditioning reinstatement
New York can require an attorney to regain good standing elsewhere (here, Pennsylvania) before New York will consider reinstatement—serving public protection and regulatory consistency.
Virginia authority over non-admitted lawyers (VA Rules of Prof Conduct rule 8.5(a))
A jurisdiction may discipline a lawyer for conduct connected to that jurisdiction even if the lawyer is not admitted there, particularly where the lawyer holds themselves out as providing legal services.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Lento reinforces New York’s reciprocal discipline structure: once foreign discipline is proven, the respondent must fit within the narrow defenses of 22 NYCRR § 1240.13(b), and New York will not permit relitigation of the underlying merits. On sanction, the Court reaffirmed its independent obligation under 22 NYCRR § 1240.8(b)(2) to protect the public and the profession, treated non-reporting of foreign discipline as an aggravator, and imposed a three-year suspension while conditioning reinstatement on Pennsylvania reinstatement. The decision’s broader significance lies in its clear warning that multi-jurisdiction misconduct—compounded by failures of candor, restitution delays, and noncompliance with reporting rules—will prompt New York to impose substantial reciprocal discipline and to tether reinstatement to meaningful foreign rehabilitation.