Reinstatement After Judiciary Law § 468-a Registration Suspension Requires Full Employment Disclosure and Verified Nonlegal Work

1. Introduction

Matter: Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Qazi), 2026 NY Slip Op 04906 (App Div 3d Dept Aug. 6, 2026).

The Third Department addressed whether Asad Ali Qazi (respondent), suspended since 2014 for failure to comply with New York attorney registration obligations under Judiciary Law § 468-a, should be reinstated. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (petitioner) opposed reinstatement, focusing on deficiencies in respondent’s disclosure of his employment history during suspension and the possibility that his out-of-state paralegal work could amount to unauthorized practice.

The key issues were: (1) whether respondent satisfied the procedural reinstatement requirements applicable to a registration-based suspension; (2) whether he proved, by clear and convincing evidence, the three-part test for reinstatement under the disciplinary rules—especially compliance with the suspension order and rules governing suspended attorneys; and (3) how the court should evaluate out-of-state law-office employment during a New York suspension, including concerns about unauthorized practice and candor.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The court granted reinstatement, effective immediately. While respondent’s initial materials were vague—particularly regarding the dates and nature of his employment during the lengthy suspension—the court required supplemental submissions. After respondent provided sworn details and corroboration from his Washington State employer that his paralegal role was administrative/technology-focused, performed under attorney supervision, and involved no legal advice or independent legal judgment, the court concluded respondent satisfied:

  • the procedural requirements (including required CLE for a suspension exceeding two years), and
  • the substantive three-part test, including compliance with the suspension order and rules for suspended attorneys.

The court nevertheless cautioned respondent about his ongoing duty of candor in submissions to courts and tribunals, citing Rules of Prof Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 3.3.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a, 113 AD3d 1020, 1048 [3d Dept 2014]
    This was the underlying suspension order, reflecting the Third Department’s established approach that failure to meet registration obligations can constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice warranting suspension. In the 2026 decision, the prior order frames the reinstatement inquiry: respondent must show post-suspension compliance and rehabilitation-type factors appropriate to the reinstatement rules.
  • 247 AD3d 1413 [3d Dept 2026]
    This was the court’s denial of respondent’s earlier reinstatement motion (January 2026). The present decision uses that denial as a roadmap: the prior failure was not a categorical bar, but a failure of proof—specifically, failure to demonstrate compliance with the suspension order and rules due to inadequate disclosure about employment during suspension. The court signals that reinstatement turns on a complete evidentiary record, not merely curing registration delinquency.
  • Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a [Serbinowski], 164 AD3d 1049, 1050 [3d Dept 2018]
    Cited for the proposition that reinstatement requires proof of requisite character and fitness. In Qazi, once compliance concerns were addressed, the record did not raise character-and-fitness issues warranting denial.
  • Matter of Sullivan, 153 AD3d 1484, 1484 [3d Dept 2017]
    Cited for the public interest prong. After respondent cured the compliance proof problem and no other red flags remained, the court found no indication that reinstatement would harm the public interest.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in a structured, rule-driven sequence typical of reinstatement decisions:

1) Procedural eligibility under the applicable reinstatement framework

Because respondent was suspended solely for failure to comply with biennial registration under Judiciary Law § 468-a(5), he could use the simplified reinstatement submission—a form affidavit contemplated by Rules of App Div, 3d Dept (22 NYCRR) § 806.16(c)(2) and Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, appendix D. However, the court emphasized that the simplified format is not a license for incomplete responses: paragraph 11 required the nature and dates of post-suspension employment.

The court also confirmed respondent’s compliance with CLE requirements applicable to suspensions longer than two years, referencing 22 NYCRR § 806.16(c)(5) (including Skills/Law Practice Management, Ethics/Professionalism, and Cybersecurity/Privacy/Data Protection credits).

2) The three-part substantive test under 22 NYCRR § 1240.16(a)

The court applied the reinstatement standard requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence of:

  1. Compliance with the suspension order and the rules governing suspended attorneys (including 22 NYCRR §§ 1240.15 and 1240.15(a)), often supported by an affidavit of compliance (appendix B) and sworn assurances of no New York practice while suspended.
  2. Character and fitness to practice.
  3. Public interest favoring reinstatement.

3) Employment disclosure as a compliance proxy—and the candor concern

The decision’s most practically important reasoning concerns employment during suspension. The court treated respondent’s initial vagueness—particularly the failure to disclose out-of-state law-firm employment absent prompting—as a serious problem because it:

  • prevented the court from confirming he had not practiced in New York while suspended, and
  • created an inference risk that information was withheld to avoid scrutiny.

The court required a detailed explanation of respondent’s paralegal duties and documentation from the employer. Respondent’s supplemental proof—administrative/technology support, attorney supervision, and no legal advice or independent judgment—resolved the compliance concern.

4) Out-of-state paralegal work and unauthorized practice concerns

Petitioner argued the Washington paralegal role might constitute unauthorized practice, citing Washington State Bar Association Advisory Opinion 1772 [1997] and Washington State Bar Association Advisory Opinion 184 [1990]. The court did not issue a definitive ruling on Washington law; instead, it evaluated whether the role, as proven, was consistent with a supervised nonlawyer function, noting the employer’s representation that respondent did not provide legal advice or exercise independent legal judgment, and referencing Washington Rules of Prof Conduct rule 5.5(b).

5) Disposition with an express warning on candor

Even while granting relief, the court highlighted the importance of truthful, complete submissions in reinstatement practice, reminding respondent of duties under Rules of Prof Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 3.3. This admonition reflects the court’s view that reinstatement is trust-restoring and candor deficits—especially around employment and law-related activity—can be disqualifying even when the underlying suspension is administrative (registration-based).

C. Impact

  • Reinstatement applications after registration suspensions are “streamlined,” not “lightly proved.” The decision underscores that the form affidavit procedure still requires substantive completeness—especially regarding employment history that could bear on unauthorized practice or compliance.
  • Employment history is treated as a key evidentiary pathway to proving compliance. Where a suspended attorney has worked in or around legal services (even out of state), the court may require employer corroboration and duty-level detail.
  • Out-of-state law-office work will be scrutinized for unauthorized practice risk. The Third Department signaled receptiveness to arguments grounded in other jurisdictions’ UPL guidance (here, Washington advisory opinions), and it expects applicants to proactively dispel UPL concerns with sworn facts and documentation.
  • Candor is a recurring theme in reinstatement outcomes. The court’s warning suggests that incomplete disclosure—particularly if it appears strategic—can jeopardize reinstatement even where the original misconduct was administrative.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Judiciary Law § 468-a (attorney registration): New York attorneys must register and pay required fees on a biennial basis. Failure can lead to administrative suspension.
  • “Clear and convincing evidence”: A higher standard than “more likely than not.” The applicant must produce strong, reliable proof—sworn statements and corroborating documents—sufficient to firmly persuade the court.
  • Affidavit of compliance (22 NYCRR § 1240.15): A sworn filing in which the suspended attorney attests to required steps taken during suspension (e.g., notice requirements where applicable) and, critically here, that they have not practiced law in New York while suspended.
  • Unauthorized practice of law (UPL): Performing tasks reserved to licensed lawyers (often including giving legal advice or exercising independent legal judgment) without authorization. Even “paralegal” work can raise UPL concerns if it crosses those boundaries.
  • Candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3): Lawyers must not mislead courts and must be truthful in submissions. In reinstatement proceedings, omissions can be treated as materially misleading.

5. Conclusion

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Qazi) reinforces that reinstatement from a registration-based suspension, though procedurally streamlined, still demands rigorous proof of compliance under the three-part test in 22 NYCRR § 1240.16(a). The Third Department effectively established (and illustrated) a practical rule: an applicant must provide complete, date-specific employment history and, where law-office work occurred during suspension, corroborated detail sufficient to eliminate concerns of unauthorized practice and to satisfy the court of the applicant’s candor and compliance. The decision both restores respondent to practice and signals to future applicants that transparency and documentation are central to reinstatement.