Introduction

In Matter of Wells, 2025 NY Slip Op 04852 (App Div 3d Dept, Sept. 4, 2025), the Appellate Division, Third Department, granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion to suspend an attorney on an interim basis. The case addresses three converging grounds for interim suspension under the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR § 1240.9): (1) admissions under oath indicating professional misconduct; (2) failure to comply with lawful investigative demands of the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) and the Court; and (3) other uncontroverted evidence of misconduct.

The decision is especially notable for its clear rejection of a “technological difficulties/spam folder” explanation for missed AGC communications once the respondent had confirmed her email address during an examination under oath and was expressly advised to expect further email contact. The Court’s opinion reinforces that neglect of estate matters—particularly failures to comply with Surrogate’s Court filing requirements and to keep fiduciary clients informed—can evidence an immediate threat to the public interest warranting interim suspension.

Parties and posture:

• Petitioner: Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC).
• Respondent: Kimberly Marie Wells, admitted in 2005, practicing in Glens Falls, New York.
• Procedural posture: AGC moved for interim suspension after the respondent’s admissions at an examination under oath (EUO) and repeated failures to comply with AGC’s demands and a subsequent Court directive granting a final 60-day opportunity to provide records and information.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court granted AGC’s motion and ordered the respondent suspended from the practice of law effective immediately and until further order of the Court. The suspension was premised on:

• Respondent’s failure to comply with lawful investigative demands of the AGC, even after a Court order afforded a final 60-day extension to do so (22 NYCRR § 1240.9[a][3]).
• Admissions under oath evidencing professional misconduct (22 NYCRR § 1240.9[a][2]).
• Other uncontroverted evidence of misconduct (22 NYCRR § 1240.9[a][5]).

The Court found respondent neglected an estate and failed to keep the executor informed, in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rule 1.3(b) (diligence) and rule 1.4(a)(3) (communication). It also rejected the respondent’s contention that email routing to a spam folder excused her non-responsiveness, particularly after she confirmed her email at the EUO and was told to expect further email communications.

The order includes:

• An immediate interim suspension until further order (with the usual prohibitions on practice and holding out).
• Compliance obligations for suspended attorneys (22 NYCRR § 1240.15).
• The right to request a postsuspension hearing within 20 days (22 NYCRR § 1240.9[c]).
• A warning that failure to participate further within six months may result in disbarment by default (22 NYCRR § 1240.9[b]).

Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

• 22 NYCRR § 1240.9(a)(2), (3), (5): The Court reiterates that interim suspension may be predicated upon:
  • Admissions under oath to professional misconduct.
  • Failure to comply with a lawful demand of the Court or AGC in an investigation.
  • Other uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct.
  The Court’s reasoning expressly invokes all three prongs as supported by the record.
• Matter of Fischer, 239 AD3d 1229, 1231–1232 (3d Dept 2025): Cited to underline that failure to comply with lawful demands in an investigation can be a sufficient ground for interim suspension. Fischer supports the proposition that ongoing noncooperation itself signals an immediate threat to the public interest under § 1240.9(a).
• Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0):
  • Rule 1.3(b) (diligence): The Court ties respondent’s neglect of the estate and delays in critical estate tasks to this rule.
  • Rule 1.4(a)(3) (communication): The Court finds a failure to keep the executor reasonably informed, particularly regarding Surrogate’s Court directives and the cause of an order compelling an accounting.
• Uniform Rules for Surrogate’s Court (22 NYCRR) §§ 207.20, 207.42: Referenced to show the respondent failed to meet court-imposed filing and reporting obligations in the estate proceeding, prompting citations and an order compelling an accounting.
• 22 NYCRR § 1240.16: The general regime governing the effect of discipline and conditions of suspension, referenced in the order implementing the suspension.
• 22 NYCRR § 1240.15: Compliance obligations for suspended attorneys, including notice, winding down, and certification of compliance.
• 22 NYCRR § 1240.9(b), (c): Post-suspension procedural protections and the risk of disbarment by default for continued nonparticipation.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the “immediate threat to the public interest” standard set out in § 1240.9(a), emphasizing that the statute enumerates illustrative, independent evidentiary routes to interim suspension, any one of which suffices. Here, the record established multiple routes simultaneously:

• Admissions under oath: At the EUO, respondent admitted to neglecting estate responsibilities, including failures to comply with Surrogate’s Court requirements, delays in attempting to recover estate assets (an annuity death benefit that went to the Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds), and unfiled tax returns. She further acknowledged similar problems across several other estate matters, including citations and warning letters, and offered no “good reason” for untimely probate filings. These admissions satisfied § 1240.9(a)(2).
• Failure to comply with lawful demands: After the EUO, AGC lawfully demanded additional records and information. Respondent did not supply them. The Court issued a confidential order granting a final 60-day period to comply and warned that failure might result in interim suspension. Respondent still did not comply. This sustained noncooperation met § 1240.9(a)(3), echoing the holding in Matter of Fischer.
• Other uncontroverted evidence: The documentary record corroborated neglect, including repeated failures to meet Surrogate’s Court requirements that resulted in judicial escalation (citation and an order compelling an accounting). That evidence satisfied § 1240.9(a)(5).

The Court rejected respondent’s assertion that technological issues—AGC emails being routed to a spam folder—and a heavy caseload excused noncompliance. It emphasized:

• The EUO placed respondent on notice that AGC would seek further information via the email address she confirmed. Therefore, she was responsible for monitoring that channel and ensuring delivery. The expectation that AGC should have taken additional nonelectronic steps “falls flat.”
• The Court granted a final, explicit 60-day extension via its own confidential order—removing any doubt about notice or the scope of requested materials. Noncompliance after that order was decisive.

On the merits, the neglect findings were anchored in concrete estate administration lapses: missing court deadlines, triggering a compelled accounting, failing to timely pursue known assets, and failing to keep the fiduciary informed—including not disclosing that the court’s order stemmed from counsel’s own filing failure. These facts supported violations of Rules 1.3(b) and 1.4(a)(3).

Because the record demonstrated an ongoing pattern across multiple estate files, the Court found an immediate threat to the public interest—not just to one client estate but potentially to others—warranting interim suspension. The remedy protects clients and the courts while preserving the respondent’s opportunity to seek a postsuspension hearing under § 1240.9(c).

C. Practical Impact and Prospective Significance

Matter of Wells carries several forward-looking implications:

• Email notice and technology competence: When an attorney confirms an email address in an AGC investigation and is told to expect further contact, the burden to ensure reliable receipt shifts squarely to the attorney. “Spam folder” routing is not an excuse for failing to respond to lawful demands. Expect disciplinary authorities to rely heavily on email communications in investigations, and expect courts to enforce that modality absent countervailing facts.
• Independent pathways to interim suspension: The decision illustrates that AGC need not prove all § 1240.9(a) pathways. Here, the Court found three independent bases, any one of which could have sufficed. Future respondents should assume that admissions at an EUO, sustained noncooperation, or uncontroverted documentary evidence—each alone—can trigger interim suspension.
• Estate practice diligence: The opinion underscores that failures to meet Surrogate’s Court filing requirements and to communicate candidly with fiduciary clients about causes and consequences of court orders are disciplinary violations. Systemic delays across multiple matters magnify risk and support the “immediate threat” finding.
• Due process and graduated sanctions: The Court’s approach—notice of deficiencies, EUO, motion practice, and an express final 60-day grace period—demonstrates a measured process. But once the Court signals a “final opportunity,” failure to comply will likely result in immediate suspension.
• Post-suspension procedure and default risk: Respondents retain the right to a postsuspension hearing but face the serious consequence of disbarment by default if they remain nonresponsive for six months.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Interim suspension (22 NYCRR § 1240.9): A temporary suspension imposed before final adjudication when an attorney’s conduct immediately threatens the public interest. It is protective rather than punitive and can rest on admissions under oath, noncooperation with lawful demands, or uncontroverted evidence of misconduct.
• Lawful demand of the AGC or Court: A formal requirement to produce records, information, or appear for testimony in a disciplinary investigation. Failure to comply—especially after a Court order reiterating and extending deadlines—supports interim suspension.
• Examination under oath (EUO): A sworn investigative proceeding similar to a deposition. Statements made there are admissions that can support interim suspension under § 1240.9(a)(2).
• Surrogate’s Court Uniform Rules (22 NYCRR §§ 207.20, 207.42): Rules governing estate proceedings, including timeliness and content of required filings (e.g., reports, accountings). Persistent noncompliance triggers court citations and orders compelling action, reflecting professional neglect.
• Rules of Professional Conduct:
  • Rule 1.3(b) (diligence): Prohibits neglecting a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer. Repeated missed deadlines and inaction on known estate assets are classic violations.
  • Rule 1.4(a)(3) (communication): Requires keeping clients reasonably informed. Failing to tell an executor that an order compelling an accounting was precipitated by counsel’s missed filing violates this duty.
• Disbarment by default (22 NYCRR § 1240.9[b]): If a suspended attorney fails to respond to or appear in further proceedings within six months, the Court may disbar without further notice.

Key Takeaways

• Confirming your email address during an AGC investigation and being told to expect email communications creates a duty to monitor and ensure receipt; a “spam folder” explanation will not excuse noncompliance.
• Interim suspension can rest on any of three independent grounds: EUO admissions, noncooperation with lawful demands, or uncontroverted evidence. In Wells, all three were present.
• Estate-practice lapses—missed Surrogate’s Court filings, delayed pursuit of known assets, unfiled tax returns, and poor client communication—can establish neglect and justify interim discipline, especially when systemic across multiple files.
• Courts may grant a final extension to comply, but failure afterward strongly signals an immediate threat to the public interest, inviting interim suspension.
• Suspended attorneys must comply with strict post-order obligations and act promptly to request any postsuspension hearing; continued silence risks disbarment by default.

Conclusion

Matter of Wells crystallizes a modern, practical rule for disciplinary investigations: once an attorney has confirmed email contact and is told to expect further electronic communications, technological glitches will not shield noncompliance. Coupled with candid EUO admissions and corroborating documentation of estate-practice neglect, the respondent’s sustained failure to cooperate justified interim suspension under 22 NYCRR § 1240.9(a)(2), (3), and (5).

The decision reinforces the profession’s core duties of diligence and communication, especially in fiduciary contexts like estate administration. It also illustrates the Third Department’s measured but firm enforcement of investigative compliance: clear notice, a final opportunity to cure, and decisive interim relief to protect the public when noncompliance persists. Going forward, Wells will guide both attorneys and disciplinary authorities on the sufficiency of email notice and the evidentiary pathways to interim suspension, while underscoring the importance of timely filings, frank client communication, and prompt, complete cooperation with AGC inquiries.