Reciprocal Discipline Under 22 NYCRR 1240.13: New York Will Publicly Censure to Match a Foreign Public Reprimand When No Statutory Defenses Are Shown
1. Introduction
Matter of Cosentino (2026 NY Slip Op 05100 [App Div 2d Dept Aug. 26, 2026]) is a reciprocal-discipline decision arising from
professional misconduct committed—and disciplined—in Massachusetts. The respondent, Michael B. Cosentino (admitted in New York as Michael Bruno
Cosentino), was publicly reprimanded by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court on March 28, 2024
for conduct that disrupted a tribunal and was prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The central New York issues were (i) whether reciprocal discipline should be imposed under 22 NYCRR 1240.13 based on the Massachusetts reprimand,
and (ii) what sanction New York should impose—particularly in light of the respondent’s attempt to re-litigate procedural complaints despite having
stipulated to facts and violations in Massachusetts and waived an evidentiary hearing.
2. Summary of the Opinion
The Second Department imposed reciprocal discipline pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 and ordered that the respondent be publicly censured.
The Court found reciprocal discipline warranted based on the respondent’s admitted Massachusetts misconduct and emphasized that, in reciprocal matters,
New York generally gives significant weight to the sanction selected by the disciplining jurisdiction. Because a New York public censure was not
inconsistent with the sanction for similar misconduct and was aligned with the foreign jurisdiction’s public reprimand, the Court imposed that public
censure.
3. Analysis
A. Precedents Cited
Matter of Megaro, 215 AD3d 67
The Court’s operative doctrinal anchor is its quotation from Matter of Megaro, 215 AD3d 67, 84, which articulates a core reciprocal-discipline
principle: New York “generally accord[s] significant weight” to the sanction imposed where the misconduct occurred, because that jurisdiction has the
“greatest interest” in sanctioning misconduct committed before its tribunals and within its regulatory sphere. Megaro also frames the
comparative inquiry New York undertakes: when the foreign sanction is “not inconsistent with the sanction for similar misconduct” in New York, the
Court “should impose the same sanction.”
In Cosentino, Megaro functions less as a contested precedent and more as a standard-of-decision: once reciprocal discipline is warranted,
sanction parity (or functional equivalence) becomes the default, absent a showing that the foreign sanction is materially inconsistent with New York
practice or that a recognized defense applies.
B. Legal Reasoning
-
Triggering event: out-of-state discipline for admitted misconduct.
Massachusetts publicly reprimanded the respondent for violating rules 3.5(d) and 8.4(d) and (h) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct.
The stipulated facts centered on the respondent sending contemporaneous “Don’t pick up” communications to a bankruptcy attorney while a judge’s clerk
was dialing that attorney from the bench—conduct the respondent admitted disrupted the court and interfered with the judge’s effort to conduct the
hearing.
-
Procedural posture matters: stipulation and waiver in the foreign proceeding.
A key feature of the record is the respondent’s Massachusetts stipulation: he admitted the allegations, waived an evidentiary hearing on facts and
violations (and on aggravation/mitigation), and jointly recommended a public reprimand. In New York, the respondent nonetheless asserted procedural
criticisms (e.g., lack of investigatory materials, inability to cross-examine), but the Grievance Committee emphasized that he did not establish any
defense under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) and that his voluntary stipulation and waiver undermined a due-process claim.
-
Reciprocal discipline warranted under 22 NYCRR 1240.13.
The Court concluded that, “based on the admitted misconduct underlying” the Massachusetts order, reciprocal discipline was warranted. The opinion is
concise but reflects the standard reciprocal template: foreign discipline + no established statutory defenses = reciprocal sanction.
-
Sanction selection: functional alignment with the foreign sanction.
Applying Matter of Megaro, the Court gave “significant weight” to Massachusetts’s chosen sanction and determined that the comparable New York
outcome should be a public censure. While terminology differs by jurisdiction (“public reprimand” vs “public censure”), the Court treated them
as functionally aligned for reciprocal purposes.
C. Impact
-
Reinforcement of sanction-parity as the default in reciprocal discipline.
Cosentino reiterates that New York will typically mirror the foreign jurisdiction’s sanction where it is not inconsistent with New York’s
approach to similar misconduct, continuing the Megaro framework.
-
Practical warning about “bench-disruption” conduct.
The facts demonstrate how seemingly brief, real-time communications intended to impede a judge’s inquiry can be characterized as disrupting a tribunal
and prejudicing the administration of justice—misconduct that readily supports public discipline across jurisdictions.
-
Limits on collateral procedural complaints after a foreign stipulation.
Although the Court does not expansively discuss due process, the decision underscores that a lawyer who stipulates to facts/violations and waives a
hearing in the foreign jurisdiction faces an uphill battle arguing—later, in New York—that the foreign process was unfair in a way that should block
reciprocity.
-
Compliance reminder: duty to report foreign discipline.
The Court notes the respondent’s failure to notify it of the Massachusetts reprimand as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d), highlighting that reciprocal
matters can be aggravated by noncompliance with reporting duties even when the underlying sanction originates elsewhere.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
- Reciprocal discipline
-
A process where one jurisdiction (here, New York) imposes discipline based on discipline imposed in another jurisdiction (here, Massachusetts),
typically to maintain consistent professional standards and protect the public.
- 22 NYCRR 1240.13
-
New York’s rule governing reciprocal discipline. It provides the mechanism for imposing discipline based on an out-of-state order and identifies
limited defenses (referenced in the opinion as 22 NYCRR 1240.13[b]) a respondent may raise to oppose reciprocal discipline.
- Public reprimand vs. public censure
-
Different jurisdictions use different labels for similar levels of public discipline. In practice, both are public declarations that the attorney
engaged in professional misconduct, without suspension or disbarment.
- Conduct “intended to disrupt a tribunal” / “prejudicial to the administration of justice”
-
Broad professional-conduct concepts capturing behavior that interferes with a court’s orderly function or undermines the integrity and fairness of
judicial proceedings—here, attempting to prevent a judge from speaking to a relevant attorney during a hearing.
5. Conclusion
Matter of Cosentino applies a straightforward but consequential reciprocal-discipline rule: when an attorney has been disciplined in another
jurisdiction for admitted misconduct and does not establish a defense under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b), New York will impose reciprocal discipline and will
generally align the sanction with the foreign jurisdiction’s choice, as framed by Matter of Megaro. The decision’s significance lies in its
reaffirmation of sanction parity (or functional equivalence) and its implicit caution that a respondent who stipulated and waived a hearing elsewhere
will rarely succeed in using procedural complaints to avoid reciprocity in New York.