Why New York’s Grievance Committee Must Address the Allegations Surrounding Its Chair, Susan G. Yellen, Esq.
In New York, the Grievance Committees are entrusted with one of the most sensitive and powerful responsibilities in the legal profession: investigating attorney misconduct and safeguarding public trust. These committees operate under the supervision of the Office of Court Administration (OCA) and provide recommendations on whether attorneys should be cautioned, reprimanded, suspended, or disbarred.
Because they hold the power to end a lawyer’s career, the public expects that the individuals leading these committees are beyond reproach. That is why the questions surrounding Susan G. Yellen, Esq., Chair of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, demand attention, transparency, and answers.
The attorney-discipline system in New York relies on public trust. Lawyers can lose their licenses, their livelihoods, and their professional reputations based on the recommendations of the state’s grievance committees. Because of the gravity of this authority, the individuals placed in leadership positions within these committees must be free from unresolved allegations and must be vetted with absolute transparency.
In the Ninth Judicial District, the Grievance Committee is chaired by Susan G. Yellen, Esq., a long-standing matrimonial attorney and partner at Eisenberg Yellen, LLP. Her publicly available bio outlines more than three decades of practice in family and matrimonial law
She also appears prominently in bar leadership listings, including the Rockland County Women’s Bar Association directory, and she is formally listed as Chair of the Ninth Judicial District Grievance Committee: https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/ad2/pdf/MEMBERS_LIST_GC_9th.pdf?
Below are publicly available links to Susan G. Yellen’s professional profile and client reviews, including reviews posted on Avvo. These reviews are reproduced and referenced here exactly as published, for transparency and public awareness.
Link to reviews on Susan G Yellen
B.F.A.
What a perfect lawyer if your looking to ruin your husbands life and get the kid$$$.. not afraid to ask her clients to lie, insults under her breathe towards the said husband. Some lawyers are good at what they do and do it respectfully, Some want only two things, to take a man down a notch, and to n
Embellished deposition
Susan had a lot of energy to start and was very motivated to get what I deserved$$$ But the only thing, she convinced me to embellish a story about an incident with my husband.. it was a physical argument for sure, but she convinced me saying I was so angry to claim my husband stalked me with a knife
These credentials reflect her standing within the legal community. Yet serious allegations have circulated publicly asserting that, during a matrimonial matter, Susan G Yellen directed a client to make statements that were not true about her husband during a divorce proceeding. While these allegations remain unverified based on publicly available records, their existence creates a direct and unavoidable conflict with the high ethical expectations placed upon the Chair of a disciplinary body.
This is not a theoretical issue. It goes to the heart of what public confidence in attorney discipline requires. A grievance committee cannot expect lawyers or the public to trust its decisions if its own leadership has not been transparently vetted. The existence of allegations—whether ultimately disproven or not—requires official acknowledgment and clarification. The committee must disclose whether Susan G Yellen was ever investigated, what the findings were, and whether she was cleared before assuming the role of Chair.
If Susan G Yellen was investigated and cleared, the committee owes the public a straightforward statement confirming that fact. A public disclaimer should appear on the committee’s materials stating that Susan G Yellen underwent review, was found fit for duty, and therefore holds her position with full institutional confidence. That level of transparency is essential for maintaining legitimacy.
If Susan G Yellen was not investigated, that omission constitutes a profound failure of the disciplinary system’s internal integrity. A leader who presides over complaints of professional misconduct cannot simultaneously hold unresolved public allegations without the committee addressing them formally. Failure to conduct such a review undermines the moral authority of the entire discipline process and casts doubt on whether the committee is capable of enforcing ethical standards fairly.
The discipline system requires the same accountability from its leaders that it demands from the lawyers it oversees. Without public vetting, without visible internal review, and without disclosure of how leadership appointments are made, the committee loses its credibility. A body that judges others must itself be judged by a transparent standard. A committee that disciplines lawyers for dishonesty, misconduct, or misrepresentation must be able to demonstrate that its chair has been examined under those same standards.
The absence of visible vetting procedures points to a systemic flaw. There is no publicly available record describing the criteria used to appoint grievance committee members. There is no posted policy outlining how allegations against committee members themselves are handled. There is no reporting mechanism indicating whether conflicts, complaints, or recusal issues have been reviewed. Without structure, oversight, and public accountability, the committee cannot fulfill its mandate to safeguard the integrity of the profession.
This system, in its current form, risks functioning as an insulated internal body rather than an accountable public-serving institution. Lawyers who appear before it cannot be expected to trust its impartiality. Members of the public who rely on it to discipline unethical attorneys cannot be expected to trust its fairness. A disciplinary committee that does not publicly demonstrate the ethical integrity of its own leadership cannot expect to regulate the ethical integrity of others.
For the grievance committee to maintain legitimacy, it must immediately implement transparent procedures. The public must be informed whether Susan G Yellen was investigated. The committee must issue a statement affirming either that she was reviewed and cleared or that the committee failed to conduct such a review and will now correct that oversight. The failure to do so creates a governance vacuum that weakens the very foundation of attorney regulation.
If the committee cannot provide proof of thorough vetting and cannot demonstrate transparency in how its chair was evaluated, then the continued existence of the committee in its present structure cannot be justified. A disciplinary body that operates without visible accountability should not govern the ethical standards of an entire profession. Structural reform—or complete replacement—may be necessary if the committee cannot show that it holds itself to the standards it enforces on others.
The public, the legal community, and the integrity of the profession deserve clarity, transparency, and truth. Until the Ninth Judicial District Grievance Committee publicly confirms how its Chair was vetted, the system remains compromised. Ethical governance requires not only the enforcement of standards but the willingness of leadership to be scrutinized by the same standards they impose on others.
Conclusion: A moment of reckoning for lawyer-discipline governance
The presence of Susan G. Yellen, Esq. as Chair of the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District is, on its face, not improper — she is a long-time matrimonial lawyer with credentials. What raises concern is the lack of public transparency around any allegation of misconduct (or alleged misconduct) against her, and the absence of a visible response by the oversight system. The system that disciplines lawyers must itself be disciplined — if only by transparency and accountability.
Suppose the public is to continue entrusting lawyers with the privilege of self-regulation (via grievance committees). In that case, it is not sufficient that the process occur behind closed doors or that leadership is assumed to be unquestioned. The system’s legitimacy depends on both substance (that complaints are investigated and misconduct addressed) and perception (that oversight bodies are themselves above reproach). Why does someone under a credible shadow remain in leadership? Why isn’t more information shared? Without answers, the system risks losing its point.
What is the point of a grievance committee anymore, if the watchers are not watched and the rules are not visible? Lawyers face severe consequences when they are found unethical — yet the committees that govern them operate under a cloak of modest transparency. For elder-law practitioners, for the public and for the profession, this is a gap that demands attention. And for your audience at “The Ethics Reporter,” shining a spotlight on this kind of structural problem is exactly the kind of ethics-discipline blogging that matters.
