The Ethics Reporter is an independent legal accountability publication dedicated to transparency in the professional conduct of attorneys, judges, and disciplinary bodies. We report on official findings, public records, and documented allegations that bear on the integrity of the legal profession.
On March 8, 2026, The Ethics Reporter submitted the following formal complaint to the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, with copies directed to the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. The complaint concerns two New York attorneys Susan G. Yellen, Esq. and Amy M. Eisenberg, Esq., co-founding partners of Eisenberg Yellen, LLP whose conduct in connection with the judicial misconduct of former Supreme Court Justice Sherri L. Eisenpress raises independent and serious grounds for disciplinary investigation.
Justice Eisenpress resigned permanently from the bench on January 28, 2026, following formal charges by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission found that she had presided over dozens of cases involving attorneys with whom she maintained undisclosed personal and social relationships including international vacations, group text chains containing sexually graphic images, and a campaign fundraiser hosted by a client’s attorney. Amy M. Eisenberg, Ms. Yellen’s law partner, was specifically named in the Commission’s findings as one of those attorneys.
This complaint raises a question that goes beyond the conduct of any individual attorney: when the Chair of the body responsible for disciplining attorneys is herself the law partner of an attorney at the center of a judicial misconduct scandal, who disciplines the disciplinarian?
We publish this complaint in full in the public interest. The integrity of attorney discipline depends on the accountability of those who administer it.
FORMAL COMPLAINT
RE: Formal Complaint of Professional Misconduct — Susan G. Yellen, Esq. (License No. 2435725), Chair, Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District; and Amy M. Eisenberg, Esq., Partner, Eisenberg Yellen, LLP
To the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District,
I respectfully submit this letter as a formal complaint of professional misconduct against Susan G. Yellen, Esq., an attorney licensed in the State of New York, partner at Eisenberg Yellen, LLP, and currently serving as Chair of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District. This complaint also concerns Amy M. Eisenberg, Esq., Ms. Yellen’s law partner and co-founding member of Eisenberg Yellen, LLP, whose conduct in connection with the judicial misconduct of former Supreme Court Justice Sherri L. Eisenpress raises separate and independent grounds for disciplinary investigation.
This complaint concerns alleged violations of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200), and is based upon publicly available evidence, official findings of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, published investigative reporting, and client testimonials posted on attorney review platforms. The gravity of this complaint is compounded by the fact that Ms. Yellen currently chairs the very body responsible for investigating attorney misconduct in the Ninth Judicial District — a position that demands the highest ethical standards and is incompatible with the conduct described herein.
1. THE EISENPRESS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT SCANDAL AND AMY EISENBERG’S CENTRAL ROLE
On January 28, 2026, Supreme Court Justice Sherri L. Eisenpress of Rockland County executed a stipulation with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct agreeing to her permanent resignation from the bench, effective April 28, 2026, and agreeing never to seek or accept judicial office in the future. The Commission’s formal charges, filed in August 2025, arose from an extensive pattern of undisclosed conflicts of interest spanning from 2019 through 2024.
The Commission found that Justice Eisenpress:
— Presided over at least 55 cases involving attorneys with whom she maintained close personal and social relationships, without disclosure or recusal.
— Participated in a social circle with practicing attorneys who appeared before her, including international vacations to the Dominican Republic (2019) and luxury Vidanta resorts in Mexico (2021, 2022, and 2023).
— Participated in group text message chains — bearing names such as “Punta Cana Partiers” and “Bougie B*tches” — that included practicing attorneys and court staff, and through which participants shared gossip, memes, off-color jokes, and sexually graphic images.
— Presided over 41 cases involving the law firm of her principal law clerk’s spouse without disclosing that relationship or implementing insulation protocols.
— Issued an unsolicited custody order in a matrimonial case favoring a client whose attorney was co-hosting a campaign fundraiser at her home for the judge’s 2022 judicial campaign.
Commission Administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian stated that Justice Eisenpress’s “permanent departure from office” was “the only appropriate resolution to maintain the integrity of the Unified Court System.” (NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct Press Release, February 2, 2026.)
Amy M. Eisenberg’s Direct Involvement
Amy M. Eisenberg, Esq., Ms. Yellen’s law partner and co-founding member of Eisenberg Yellen, LLP, was specifically named in the Commission’s findings as one of the attorneys who maintained an undisclosed personal and social relationship with Justice Eisenpress. The official record establishes that:
— Ms. Eisenberg appeared in at least 18 cases before Justice Eisenpress between 2019 and January 2025.
— In 17 of those 18 cases, Ms. Eisenberg failed to disclose her intimate social relationship with the presiding judge.
— Ms. Eisenberg participated in the “Punta Cana Partiers” group text chain with Justice Eisenpress, which included sexually graphic images and off-color jokes.
— Ms. Eisenberg traveled internationally with Justice Eisenpress, including to luxury Vidanta resorts in Mexico, where the judge used her vacation club membership to provide discounted rates to attorneys in her social circle.
— At no point during this six-year period did Ms. Eisenberg seek Justice Eisenpress’s recusal or disclose the conflict to opposing counsel or to the clients she represented before that court.
Ms. Eisenberg’s conduct represents a sustained, six-year pattern of deception by omission. Her clients were entitled to know that their attorney maintained an intimate social relationship with the judge deciding their cases. Opposing parties were entitled to know that the judge hearing their matters was vacationing, socializing, and exchanging sexually graphic text messages with counsel on the other side. The failure to disclose this information across 17 cases is not an oversight — it is a pattern.
2. RULE VIOLATIONS BY AMY M. EISENBERG
Rule 8.4(d) — Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
Appearing in 18 cases before a judge with whom she maintained an undisclosed intimate social relationship — including international vacations and group text chains containing sexually graphic images — constitutes conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Every litigant who appeared opposite Ms. Eisenberg before Justice Eisenpress was denied the impartial tribunal to which they were constitutionally entitled.
Rule 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal
Rule 3.3 requires attorneys to be candid with the tribunal and prohibits conduct that assists the court in perpetrating a fraud upon opposing parties. Ms. Eisenberg’s silence about her relationship with Justice Eisenpress effectively assisted the court in concealing a disqualifying conflict from the parties and their counsel.
Rule 1.7(a) — Concurrent Conflict of Interest
Ms. Eisenberg’s personal relationship with the presiding judge created a concurrent conflict of interest with her own clients. Her clients were entitled to informed consent regarding this relationship and its potential impact on their cases. No such consent was obtained because no such disclosure was made.
Rule 8.4(c) — Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation
The systematic failure to disclose a material conflict across 17 cases over six years constitutes misrepresentation by omission. This is not a single lapse in judgment — it is a deliberate and sustained pattern of concealment.
3. SUSAN G. YELLEN’S FITNESS TO SERVE AS GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR
Susan G. Yellen currently serves as Chair of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District. In this capacity, she exercises quasi-judicial authority over the professional conduct of every attorney practicing in Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess Counties. She has the power to issue Letters of Caution and Admonition, to initiate formal disciplinary charges, and to recommend suspension or disbarment. Her decisions affect attorneys’ livelihoods, reputations, and liberty.
Ms. Yellen’s continued service as Chair is untenable for the following reasons:
(a) Her Law Partner’s Central Role in the Eisenpress Scandal
Ms. Yellen is the co-founding partner and business partner of Amy M. Eisenberg. They share a firm name, a letterhead, a client base, and — presumably — profits. Ms. Eisenberg has been identified in official Commission on Judicial Conduct findings as a participant in a six-year pattern of undisclosed conflicts with a judge who has been forced to resign. Either Ms. Yellen knew about her partner’s conduct and remained silent, or she was willfully blind to it. Neither alternative is consistent with service as the chief disciplinary authority in the Ninth Judicial District.
(b) Failure to Report Under Rule 8.3(a)
Rule 8.3(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct provides that an attorney who knows that another attorney has committed a violation of the Rules that raises a substantial question as to that attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer “shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.” Ms. Eisenberg’s conduct — participating in an intimate social circle with a judge before whom she regularly appeared, traveling internationally with that judge, participating in group chats involving sexually graphic images, and failing to disclose these relationships in 17 cases — clearly raises a “substantial question” as to Ms. Eisenberg’s fitness. Ms. Yellen’s failure to report this conduct is itself a violation of Rule 8.3(a).
(c) Supervisory Failures Under Rule 5.1
As a partner at Eisenberg Yellen, LLP, Ms. Yellen bears supervisory responsibility under Rule 5.1, which requires law firm partners to make “reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.” Ms. Yellen either failed to implement adequate supervisory measures to detect her partner’s sustained pattern of undisclosed conflicts, or she was aware of the conduct and failed to act. In either case, she has failed her obligations under Rule 5.1.
(d) Conflict of Interest in Her Committee Role
Ms. Yellen’s position as Grievance Committee Chair creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Any complaint filed against Amy Eisenberg — or against any attorney in Justice Eisenpress’s social circle — would necessarily implicate Ms. Yellen’s own partner and, by extension, her own knowledge, supervision, and potential culpability. There is no mechanism by which Ms. Yellen can discharge her duties as Chair with respect to these matters without an actual or perceived conflict. Rule 8.4(c) prohibits misrepresentation by omission; Ms. Yellen’s failure to disclose this conflict while serving on the Committee is itself a violation.
4. UNRESOLVED AVVO REVIEWS ALLEGING CLIENT DECEPTION
Independent of the Eisenpress matter, two publicly available client reviews on Avvo.com raise additional, separate concerns about Ms. Yellen’s professional conduct:
Client Review No. 1
A client review posted on Avvo alleges that Ms. Yellen encouraged dishonesty toward the opposing party and made disparaging comments about the client’s husband during the course of matrimonial proceedings.
Client Review No. 2
A second client review alleges that Ms. Yellen “convinced [the client] to embellish a story” about a domestic violence incident, specifically urging the client to claim that “my husband stalked me with a knife around the house” when the actual incident involved “a physical argument” that did not include a weapon. The reviewer states that while she ultimately prevailed in the case, she “felt [her] soul’s been tainted” by the experience.
If true, these allegations describe conduct that violates Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), Rule 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), Rule 8.4(c) (Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation), and Rule 8.4(d) (Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice). Encouraging a client to present fabricated testimony about a knife attack in a custody proceeding is not aggressive advocacy — it is subornation of perjury.
These reviews remain publicly visible and unaddressed. While online reviews require independent verification, their existence creates, at minimum, an appearance of impropriety for an attorney who chairs the body responsible for disciplining other attorneys for precisely this kind of conduct.
5. THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ACCOUNTABILITY
(a) Quasi-Judicial Immunity and the Accountability Gap
Grievance committee members, including the chair, enjoy quasi-judicial immunity from civil liability for actions taken within the scope of their duties. Federal courts, including the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, have recognized that grievance committee proceedings are “judicial in nature” and that members are entitled to “absolute judicial immunity from liability for duties performed in connection with their grievance work.” This immunity is appropriate and necessary to protect the independence of the disciplinary process — but it also means that a compromised chair cannot be held accountable through ordinary civil litigation. The only mechanism for accountability is the disciplinary process itself.
(b) Public Funding Demands Public Transparency
The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District is a state-financed, court-appointed body staffed by full-time professional employees of the Unified Court System. While committee members serve as volunteers, the infrastructure that supports their work — office space, staff attorneys, investigators, administrative personnel — is funded by New York taxpayers. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the individuals entrusted with this sensitive authority are themselves meeting the ethical standards they enforce against others.
(c) National Precedent Requires Special Procedures
The American Bar Association’s Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement (Rule 18) specifically address situations where a member of a disciplinary body is themselves the subject of a complaint. The Model Rules provide that when the respondent is a member of the board, “the chief justice shall appoint a special board for the case.” Similarly, North Carolina’s disciplinary rules provide for delegation of the chair’s duties when the chair is “absent or disqualified.” These provisions recognize a principle that should be self-evident: no person can sit in judgment of others while their own conduct is under investigation. New York should follow these national standards.
6. SPECIFIC RELIEF REQUESTED
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that the Grievance Committee — and, to the extent necessary, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department — take the following actions:
- Investigate Susan G. Yellen, Esq. for violations of Rules 5.1, 8.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct arising from her failure to report, supervise, or address her law partner’s participation in the Eisenpress judicial misconduct scheme.
- Suspend Ms. Yellen as Chair of the Grievance Committee pending the outcome of this investigation, consistent with ABA Model Rule 18 and basic principles of due process and conflict avoidance.
- Investigate Amy M. Eisenberg, Esq. for violations of Rules 1.7(a), 3.3, 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) arising from her six-year pattern of undisclosed conflicts with Justice Eisenpress.
- Appoint independent counsel or a special committee to handle both investigations, given the obvious conflict of interest created by the subject being the current Chair of the body tasked with conducting the investigation.
- Investigate the Avvo review allegations against Ms. Yellen regarding the alleged subornation of perjury, including obtaining and reviewing the court files for the matrimonial proceedings referenced in the reviews.
- Conduct an audit of complaints filed against attorneys in Justice Eisenpress’s social circle to determine whether any such complaints were ignored, dismissed prematurely, or otherwise handled improperly during Ms. Yellen’s tenure as Chair.
- Publish the Committee’s findings in this matter. The standard practice of resolving grievance complaints through private letters is insufficient where the integrity of the disciplinary process itself is at issue. The public, which funds this Committee and entrusts it with the protection of the legal profession’s integrity, is entitled to a transparent accounting of how this matter is resolved.
7. CONCLUSION
The situation presented by this complaint is extraordinary. The Chair of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District is the law partner of an attorney who has been officially identified as a central participant in one of the most significant judicial misconduct scandals in the recent history of the New York State court system. That same Chair faces unresolved public allegations that she encouraged her own clients to fabricate testimony in court proceedings. The integrity of the disciplinary process in the Ninth Judicial District cannot survive if the person at its helm is herself the subject of legitimate ethical inquiry.
As Commission Administrator Tembeckjian stated in connection with Justice Eisenpress’s resignation, the integrity of the court system demands accountability. That principle applies with equal force to the body that disciplines attorneys. A grievance committee that cannot police its own leadership has no credibility to police anyone else.
I respectfully urge this Committee, and the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, to the extent its intervention is required to act promptly and transparently in this matter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Favour Inegbenehi
SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES CITED
- NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, Press Release, “Supreme Court Justice Sherri L. Eisenpress Resigns” (February 2, 2026) — cjc.ny.gov
- NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct, Stipulation, In the Matter of Sherri L. Eisenpress (January 28, 2026) — cjc.ny.gov/Determinations/E/Eisenpress.Sherri.L.2026.01.28.STIP.pdf
- Rockland County Business Journal, “Justice Sherri Eisenpress Resigns From The Bench Following Formal Charges Of Misconduct” (February 2, 2026)
- 22 NYCRR Part 1200, New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.7(a), 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 8.3(a), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) — nycourts.gov
- 22 NYCRR Part 100, Rules Governing Judicial Conduct, §§ 100.1, 100.2(A), 100.2(B), 100.3(B)(1), 100.3(C)(2)
- ABA Model Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement, Rule 18 — americanbar.org
- Avvo.com, Attorney Profile: Susan Yellen, Client Reviews (accessed March 8, 2026) — avvo.com/attorneys/10956-ny-susan-yellen-4712377.html
- NYSBA, Guide to Attorney Discipline (2023) — nysba.org
- NYS Courts, Members of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District — nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/pdf/MEMBERS_LIST_GC_9th.pdf
