On Thursday, March 5, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department disbarred attorney Lamon Darrell Bland, effective immediately. Wikipedia
The disbarment was not the result of a finding of client harm, financial fraud, or criminal conduct. It was the result of something more fundamental: Bland’s complete and sustained refusal to participate in the disciplinary process at all. He did not appear when summoned. He did not produce documents when ordered. He did not respond to the investigation after being suspended. And when he briefly signaled an interest in reinstatement, he still did not cooperate with the investigation that was the reason for his suspension in the first place.
Under New York’s disciplinary rules, that pattern of non-engagement carries a single consequence: disbarment.
The Original Complaint: A Former Landlord’s Judgment
The initial complaint against Bland was filed by his former landlord, alleging the attorney had failed to satisfy a judgment obtained against him. Wikipedia
The nature of the complaint is notable. This was not a client alleging neglect, misappropriation, or dishonesty in a legal matter. It was a creditor — Bland’s former landlord — alleging that Bland had failed to pay a civil judgment entered against him personally. While such a complaint might seem minor in isolation, it triggered an investigation by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, and it was Bland’s response to that investigation — or rather, his refusal to respond — that produced the disbarment.
The Interim Suspension: May 1, 2025
Bland’s disbarment stems from a motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, following his initial suspension on May 1, 2025. The suspension was enacted due to Bland’s failure to comply with the AGC’s investigative demands, including neglecting to appear for an examination under oath and failing to produce specified documents as directed by a judicial subpoena. Wikipedia
The interim suspension was entered under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) — the provision that authorizes immediate suspension of an attorney who fails to comply with a lawful demand made in connection with a disciplinary investigation. It is an interim measure, not a final disposition. The court’s expectation at that stage was that Bland would come into compliance, cooperate with the investigation, and seek reinstatement through the proper process.
That is not what happened.
Acknowledgment Without Action
Despite being notified of his suspension and acknowledging receipt of the court’s order, Bland’s subsequent actions led to the disbarment. Although Bland indicated that he was “not interested” in contesting his suspension, he later sought reinstatement on September 16, 2025. However, he did not cooperate with the AGC’s investigation. Wikipedia
This sequence is significant. Bland was not unaware of the proceedings against him. He received notice of his suspension. He acknowledged that notice. He even filed a motion seeking reinstatement in September 2025 — which demonstrates that he understood the process and was capable of engaging with it. But when it came to the one thing the court and the AGC actually required — cooperating with the underlying investigation — he continued to do nothing.
A reinstatement motion filed by an attorney who is simultaneously refusing to cooperate with the investigation that caused their suspension is not a good-faith effort to comply. The court treated it accordingly.
The Disbarment: March 5, 2026
The court found that Bland had neither responded to nor appeared for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of his suspension. Consequently, the court granted the AGC’s motion to disbar Bland, citing 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) as the basis for the decision. Wikipedia
22 NYCRR 1240.9(b) is the provision that converts an interim suspension into permanent disbarment when a suspended attorney fails to respond to or appear for further investigative or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the suspension. It is a bright-line rule: six months of non-engagement after interim suspension equals disbarment. No further findings of underlying misconduct are required.
The decision was presided over by Justice Barbara R. Kapnick, with Justices Lizbeth González, Martin Shulman, John R. Higgitt, and Llinét M. Rosado concurring. Wikipedia The decision was unanimous.
Consequences of the Disbarment
As a result of the disbarment, Bland is now prohibited from practicing law in any form in New York State. This includes acting as a principal, agent, clerk, or employee in a legal capacity, appearing as an attorney before any court or public authority, providing legal opinions or advice, and presenting himself as an attorney. He is also required to comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred attorneys, as outlined in 22 NYCRR 1240.15. The court ordered that any secure pass issued to Bland by the Office of Court Administration be returned. Wikipedia
The prohibition is comprehensive and immediate. Bland may not practice law in any capacity — not as a solo practitioner, not as an employee of another attorney, not as a legal consultant. Any representation of himself as an attorney following the effective date of disbarment would constitute the unauthorized practice of law, itself a criminal offense under New York Judiciary Law § 478.
The Rule Behind the Disbarment: 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b)
New York’s 22 NYCRR 1240.9 is one of the disciplinary system’s most direct accountability tools. It operates in two stages:
Under subdivision (a), the Appellate Division may immediately suspend an attorney who — among other things — fails to comply with a lawful demand made in connection with a disciplinary investigation, or fails to appear for a required examination under oath. This is the provision that produced Bland’s May 1, 2025 interim suspension.
Under subdivision (b), if the suspended attorney fails to respond to or appear for further investigative or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the suspension, the Appellate Division may disbar the attorney on motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee. This is the provision that produced the March 5, 2026 disbarment.
The rule reflects a deliberate policy judgment: an attorney who refuses to engage with the disciplinary system has, by their silence, demonstrated that they are not fit to hold a law license. The system does not require a full evidentiary hearing to reach that conclusion.
This approach parallels — though differs in mechanism from — the Florida Bar’s contempt framework, under which attorneys who refuse to comply with court-ordered disciplinary conditions face escalating sanctions up to disbarment, as demonstrated in the disbarment of Lisa Jacobs and the posthumous suspension of Emelike Nwosuocha covered in this publication’s Florida Bar series.
Reinstatement
Under New York law, a disbarred attorney may petition for reinstatement after seven years from the effective date of disbarment. Any petition would require Bland to demonstrate rehabilitation, fitness to practice law, and that reinstatement would not be contrary to the public interest.
Notably, if Bland were ever to seek reinstatement, the original complaint — the unsatisfied landlord judgment and the investigation that flowed from it — would almost certainly need to be fully resolved as a precondition. An attorney who sought reinstatement without having addressed the underlying complaint that triggered the entire disciplinary chain would face an uphill path before any Appellate Division panel.
Members of the public who wish to verify the current status of a New York attorney may search the NYS OCA Attorney Search portal. Members of the public who wish to file a complaint against an attorney practicing in Manhattan or the Bronx may contact the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department directly.
For a comprehensive overview of how New York attorney discipline works from complaint through final sanction, the NYSBA Guide to Attorney Discipline (2023) provides a thorough reference.
