Reciprocal Discipline Under 22 NYCRR 1240.13: Two-Year Suspension for Attorney Misconduct and Notification Failure

Introduction

The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Matter of Cobb (2025 NYSlipOp 01803) adopted reciprocal disciplinary measures against William Wyman Cobb, an attorney admitted in New York and Vermont, based on the Vermont Supreme Court’s order of October 13, 2022. The New York proceeding arose under 22 NYCRR 1240.13, which mandates reciprocal discipline when an attorney is sanctioned in another jurisdiction. Cobb was publicly reprimanded and suspended in Vermont for breaches of competence, diligence, confidentiality, and candor, and for failing to notify New York authorities of that discipline. The Second Department imposed a two-year suspension in New York, effective April 25, 2025, with reinstatement not before October 26, 2026.

Summary of the Judgment

The court ordered that:

Cobb is suspended from the practice of law in New York for two years.
The suspension is reciprocal to Vermont’s 1¼-year sanction for violations of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) of the Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct.
Cobb failed to notify the Grievance Committee of the Vermont discipline, violating 22 NYCRR 1240.13(d).
Reinstatement is conditioned on compliance with all disciplinary rules, continuing legal education, and proof of good conduct.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Matter of Megaro, 215 AD3d 67: Established that New York courts generally defer to the sanction imposed by a foreign jurisdiction unless it substantially deviates from New York precedent.
Matter of Krame, 222 AD3d 59: Applied the standard deference in reciprocal proceedings and upheld a two-year suspension for comparable misconduct.
22 NYCRR 1240.13: Governs reciprocal discipline, requiring an attorney to notify the disciplinary authority in New York within 30 days after discipline in another jurisdiction.

These authorities guided the Second Department in balancing deference to Vermont’s sanction against New York’s standards for similar misconduct.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning followed a three-step framework:

Reciprocal Discipline Procedural Requirements: Under 22 NYCRR 1240.13, the respondent was directed to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed. Cobb’s failure to respond waived any defenses and mitigated evidence.
Substance of Misconduct: The Vermont Supreme Court found multiple violations—failure to obtain key records (Rule 1.1), failure to pursue client requests diligently (Rule 1.3), unauthorized disclosure of confidential juvenile court records and client information (Rules 1.6 & 8.4(d)), and misrepresentation of time records (Rule 8.4(c)).
Sanction Comparison: The court weighed Vermont’s 1¼-year suspension against New York precedents. Under Megaro, deference is merited unless the foreign sanction diverges substantially. Given the gravity of Cobb’s misconduct and the absence of a prior record, the court concluded a two-year suspension is appropriate and consistent with Krame.

Impact

This decision reinforces several key principles in New York attorney discipline:

Strict Adherence to Notification Rules: Failure to notify the Grievance Committee of out-of-state discipline will trigger reciprocal proceedings and potential aggravation of sanctions.
Deference with Limits: New York courts will generally respect foreign sanctions but will impose a stiffer penalty if the misconduct is severe or New York precedent warrants a harsher sanction.
Protections for Confidentiality: Mishandling of juvenile or other sensitive records is a serious breach, attracting significant discipline.

Future reciprocal cases will likely cite Cobb to underscore the importance of compliance with notification requirements and the court’s willingness to adjust foreign sanctions upward when justified.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reciprocal Discipline: When a lawyer is disciplined in one jurisdiction, another jurisdiction where the lawyer is admitted may impose the same or a similar sanction without relitigating the underlying facts.
22 NYCRR 1240.13: This regulation requires an attorney to report any out-of-state discipline to the New York Grievance Committee within 30 days, or risk automatic reciprocal discipline.
Professional Conduct Rules:
- Rule 1.1 (Competence): Lawyers must provide informed, thorough representation.
- Rule 1.3 (Diligence): Lawyers must act promptly and heed client instructions.
- Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality): Lawyers must safeguard all client information.
- Rule 8.4(c) & (d): Prohibits dishonest conduct, misrepresentation, and unauthorized disclosures.

Conclusion

Matter of Cobb establishes that New York will enforce reciprocal discipline vigorously when counsel fails to notify the Grievance Committee of foreign sanctions and commits serious breaches of competence, diligence, confidentiality, and candor. The two-year suspension—longer than Vermont’s sanction—demonstrates the Second Department’s willingness to enhance reciprocal discipline where misconduct is pervasive or notification rules are violated. This decision will serve as a guidepost for attorneys admitted in multiple jurisdictions to maintain meticulous record-keeping, uphold confidentiality, and comply promptly with all reporting obligations.