New York’s Appellate Divisions continue to send a clear message: Lawyers who abuse their positions of trust, whether through financial misconduct, dishonesty, or exploitation of vulnerable clients, will face serious consequences. Below is a selection of recent disciplinary rulings where attorneys were disbarred or suspended, offering insight into the kinds of conduct that the courts consider incompatible with the standards of the legal profession.
Appellate Division: Second Department, Matter of Jones, 209 A.D.3d 2d Department 2024
Voluntarily disbarred following admissions of client fund misappropriation, improper bookkeeping, and commingling. Despite esteem in the legal community, the misconduct warranted removal.
Jones admitted to misappropriating escrow funds, commingling client funds, and keeping improper bookkeeping records during his tenure at E. Stewart Jones PLLC, prior to its merger in 2015.
The Board’s review was triggered by a dishonored check report in January 2019, which led to a seven-year audit of the firm’s escrow account.
Despite Jones’s prominent reputation, the charges included nine counts of professional misconduct. The investigation found no evidence of actual client losses but the rule violations themselves were serious.
Jones voluntarily applied to resign, acknowledging he could not successfully defend against the charges. The court accepted his application and immediately disbarred him.
This case highlights that voluntary resignation even in the wake of serious allegations can lead to absolute disbarment, not a lesser sanction.
This case also clarifies that no client loss is necessary for disbarment; mishandling of funds and poor recordkeeping breaches ethical rules in themselves.
Appellate Division: Second Department (kings county), Matter of Smallman, 211 A.D.3d 2d Department 2024
Suspension imposed for sexual misconduct involving a vulnerable client, in violation of ethical rules protecting client vulnerability and power imbalance.
In September 2020, Smallman then representing a woman (identified as “CL”) facing homicide charges engaged in a sexual act (oral sex) with her in his Brooklyn office. CL was a known survivor of childhood and adult sex trafficking and remained under his legal representation. The Appellate Division found his conduct exploited a profound power imbalance, constituting professional misconduct through coercion or undue influence in violation of Rules 1.8(j)(1)(ii) and 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The disciplinary petition was filed in May 2021, followed by a Special Referee hearing held in 2022–2023. Two charges were sustained. Smallman contested one, but ultimately both were upheld. He sought a reduced sanction, suggesting a censure rather than suspension.
Regardless of mitigation efforts including therapy attendance, abstaining from representing female clients, and health struggles the court deemed the misconduct severe.
This case emphasizes the position that lawyers must avoid any sexual or financial involvement with clients, regardless of apparent willingness, when it impairs judgment or exploits trust.
This also demonstrates how mitigating factors (e.g. rehabilitation efforts, limited representation scope) may not outweigh fundamental breaches of ethical duties.