Reciprocal Interim Suspension in New York Based on Florida Emergency Suspension Absent 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) Defenses (Matter of Hurckes)

1. Introduction

Matter of Hurckes (2026 NY Slip Op 01408 [1st Dept Mar. 12, 2026]) is a reciprocal-discipline decision from the Appellate Division, First Department, arising from an emergency suspension imposed by the Supreme Court of Florida. The petitioner was the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department (AGC); the respondent was Michael Alexander Hurckes, a New York attorney admitted in 2022 (Third Department) and registered in the First Department, who was also admitted in Florida in 2022.

The central issue was whether New York should impose reciprocal discipline—specifically, an interim suspension—based on Florida’s emergency suspension order, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.13. The respondent did not appear or oppose the motion in New York.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The First Department granted the AGC’s motion and imposed an immediate interim suspension “until further order of this Court,” mirroring Florida’s emergency suspension. The Court held that none of the defenses available under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) applied (and none was raised), finding: (i) due process was afforded in Florida, (ii) there was no infirmity of proof, and (iii) the alleged conduct would also constitute misconduct in New York under multiple Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Court further reiterated its general practice of deferring to the sanction imposed by the originating jurisdiction and found interim suspension commensurate and supported by precedent.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • Matter of Milara, 194 AD3d 108, 110 (1st Dept 2021)
    The Court cited Matter of Milara for the three exclusive defenses a respondent may raise in a reciprocal-discipline proceeding under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b): (1) lack of notice/opportunity to be heard (due process), (2) infirmity of proof, or (3) the foreign misconduct would not be misconduct in New York. Milara also supported the Court’s later statement that New York generally defers to the foreign sanction (id. at 111), framing deference as the norm and departure as exceptional.
  • Matter of Tabacco, 171 AD3d 163, 165 (1st Dept 2019)
    Cited with Milara for the proposition that the First Department generally defers to the originating jurisdiction’s sanction because that forum has the greatest interest in shaping discipline for misconduct prosecuted there. This reinforces the institutional rationale for reciprocity: consistency, comity, and efficient protection of the public.
  • Matter of Blumenthal, 165 AD3d 85, 86 (1st Dept 2018)
    Cited alongside Tabacco to underscore that deference is a “general rule” in reciprocal matters. In Hurckes, this supported a sanction aligned with Florida’s emergency suspension rather than an independent, de novo sanctioning exercise by New York.
  • Matter of Karambelas, 203 AD3d 75, 80-81 (1st Dept 2022)
    Cited for the limiting principle: departures from the general rule of deference are “rare.” This citation frames the Court’s role as primarily confirmatory unless a compelling reason exists to impose a materially different sanction.
  • Matter of McHallam, 160 AD3d 89, 92 (1st Dept 2018)
    Also cited to emphasize that deviation from the foreign jurisdiction’s sanction is exceptional. Its use in Hurckes signals that, absent a demonstrated disparity implicating fairness or New York policy, proportional reciprocity is preferred.
  • Matter of Kort, 224 AD3d 15 (1st Dept 2024)
    Cited as an example where an interim suspension was deemed an appropriate reciprocal sanction, validating interim suspension as a standard response when the foreign jurisdiction has imposed comparable temporary relief pending further proceedings.
  • Matter of Carrillo, 219 AD3d 1 (1st Dept 2023)
    Like Kort, cited to show that interim suspension is consistent with First Department practice in reciprocal cases when the underlying foreign discipline is interim/emergency in nature, supporting the Court’s conclusion that interim suspension is “in accord with the relevant precedent.”

B. Legal Reasoning

1) The reciprocal discipline framework (Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.13)

The Court proceeded under the reciprocal discipline mechanism that allows New York to respond promptly to discipline imposed elsewhere. The key doctrinal move in Hurckes is not to retry Florida’s case, but to determine whether the Florida order is a suitable predicate and whether any of the limited 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) defenses bar reciprocity.

2) Application of the three 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) defenses

  • Due process (notice/opportunity to be heard): The Court found respondent “was afforded due process in Florida,” noting he received notice of allegations and opposed the emergency suspension motion there. This finding defeats the first defense even though respondent did not raise it in New York.
  • Infirmity of proof: The Court held the Florida record “sufficiently supported” the allegations, grounded in client/respondent conversations and documentary evidence. Importantly, because the Florida suspension was “emergency” in nature (protective and interim), the New York court focused on whether the Florida process produced a reliable record adequate to justify reciprocal interim relief—not final adjudication on every allegation.
  • Mismatch of misconduct: The Court found the alleged Florida conduct would constitute New York misconduct under: Rules 1.3(a), 1.3(b), 1.16(e), 7.1(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d), and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). This is a key reciprocity step: even if another jurisdiction’s fee rules or labels differ (e.g., Florida’s permissibility of “nonrefundable” retainers), New York assesses whether the conduct—minimal work, neglect, missed deadlines, failure to communicate, misleading advertising, and retaliatory billing/collections practices— would violate New York’s ethical standards.

3) Selecting the sanction: deference and commensurability

After finding no defense applies, the Court turned to sanction. Relying on Matter of Milara, Matter of Tabacco, and Matter of Blumenthal, it reiterated the “general rule” of deferring to the originating jurisdiction because it has the greatest interest in sanctioning misconduct charged there. Citing Matter of Karambelas and Matter of McHallam, the Court highlighted that departures are “rare,” and found no basis to depart here.

Because Florida imposed an emergency suspension “until further court order,” the First Department concluded an interim suspension was “commensurate” and consistent with Matter of Kort and Matter of Carrillo. The remedy is protective: it prevents ongoing harm while the underlying foreign proceedings continue.

C. Impact

  • Reinforcement of swift protective reciprocity: Hurckes confirms that a foreign emergency suspension—supported by a record and accompanied by notice and an opportunity to be heard—can support a rapid New York interim suspension. This promotes immediate public protection in New York when an attorney’s conduct elsewhere signals a risk of harm.
  • Limited room to relitigate foreign allegations: By emphasizing the narrow 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) defenses (and finding none applicable), the decision underscores that reciprocal proceedings are not a second merits trial. Respondents must squarely raise and substantiate one of the enumerated defenses to avoid reciprocal action.
  • Advertising and “credentials” scrutiny: The opinion’s discussion of website claims (“over 20 years of service” and “best lawyer of 2023” despite 2022 admissions) highlights how misleading marketing allegations can aggravate a broader pattern of client-harm conduct and independently map onto New York’s Rule 7.1(a) and Rule 8.4(c) concerns.
  • Cross-jurisdictional consequences: For attorneys admitted in multiple states, Hurckes illustrates that interim measures in one jurisdiction can quickly cascade into reciprocal interim restrictions elsewhere, even before a final disciplinary adjudication is reached in the originating forum.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Reciprocal discipline: A process where New York imposes discipline based on another jurisdiction’s discipline, so that a lawyer cannot effectively avoid professional consequences by practicing across state lines.
  • Interim (or emergency) suspension: A temporary suspension imposed to protect the public while a disciplinary case continues. It is not necessarily a final determination of all charges.
  • 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) defenses: The only defenses typically available in a New York reciprocal discipline case: (1) unfair process in the other state (no notice/hearing), (2) unreliable proof, (3) the conduct wouldn’t violate New York ethics rules.
  • “Infirmity of proof”: A serious weakness in the evidence—more than disagreement—such that it would be unjust to rely on the foreign record.
  • “Commensurate” sanction: A New York discipline outcome that matches, in substance and severity, what the other jurisdiction imposed, unless there is a rare reason to differ.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Hurckes applies and reinforces a clear reciprocal-discipline rule in the First Department: when a foreign jurisdiction imposes an emergency suspension supported by a sufficient record and compliant with due process, and the conduct would also be misconduct in New York, the Court will ordinarily defer and impose a commensurate interim suspension—especially where the respondent does not raise a recognized 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) defense. The decision underscores New York’s commitment to prompt public protection and cross-jurisdictional consistency in attorney discipline.