On Wednesday, February 18, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department granted a motion to disbar attorney Terrance J. Dougherty. Martindale
The disbarment was not discretionary. Under New York Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), a felony conviction automatically strips an attorney of their law license the moment the conviction is entered. What the Appellate Division was asked to do — and did — was confirm what the law had already declared: that Dougherty ceased to be an attorney the moment he pleaded guilty, and that his name must be formally stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law.
What makes the Dougherty case remarkable is not the mechanism of the disbarment but the scope of the underlying conduct. This was not a single client harmed by neglect or a trust account improperly managed. This was a sustained, multi-year criminal scheme — nearly four years, 30 separate victims, and $1.7 million in losses — that a real estate attorney carried out against the very people who had trusted him with their most significant financial transactions.
For the full list of New York attorney disciplinary actions in 2026, see the ALABnews New York disciplinary coverage page.
The Criminal Scheme: March 2021 — November 2024
Dougherty’s guilty plea covered multiple felony charges, including 13 counts of grand larceny in the second degree and one count of scheme to defraud in the first degree. These offenses were related to thefts impacting 30 victims over a period from March 2021 to November 2024, with total restitution ordered amounting to $1,721,600. Martindale
Grand larceny in the second degree under New York Penal Law § 155.40 applies when the stolen property exceeds $50,000 in value. Thirteen separate counts of that charge — each reflecting a distinct theft or series of thefts — indicates that Dougherty’s scheme was not a single transaction gone wrong but a repeated pattern of criminal conduct carried out against client after client over nearly four years.
The charge of scheme to defraud in the first degree under New York Penal Law § 190.65 requires proof that the defendant engaged in a systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud ten or more persons. With 30 victims identified and nearly four years of criminal activity, Dougherty’s conduct far exceeded the statutory threshold.
As a real estate attorney, Dougherty would have routinely handled large sums of client money — down payments, escrow funds, closing proceeds, and title-related deposits — making the position an instrument of access to the funds that became the target of the scheme.
The Conviction: September 8, 2025
The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District initiated the motion to remove Dougherty from the state bar following his felony conviction on September 8, 2025. Under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), Dougherty’s conviction automatically resulted in his disbarment, confirming that he had ceased to be an attorney. Martindale
New York Judiciary Law § 90(4) is unequivocal: any attorney convicted of a felony under New York law — including through a guilty plea — automatically ceases to be an attorney and counselor-at-law. The disbarment is self-executing. The Appellate Division’s subsequent order confirming the disbarment and striking the attorney’s name from the roll is a formal administrative step, not a discretionary judgment.
The February 18, 2026 Order
The court subsequently ruled to officially strike his name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, reflecting this automatic disbarment. Martindale
The court’s disposition stated: “It is ORDERED that the Grievance Committee’s motion to strike the name of the respondent, Terrance J. Dougherty, admitted as Terrance Joseph Dougherty, from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, pursuant to Judiciary Law 90(4)(b), is granted.”
In addition to the disbarment, the court ordered Dougherty to comply with regulations governing disbarred attorneys. This includes prohibitions against practicing law and representing himself as an attorney in any capacity moving forward. Furthermore, any secure passes issued to him by the Office of Court Administration must be returned immediately. Martindale
Consequences of Disbarment
The consequences of Dougherty’s disbarment are comprehensive and permanent unless he successfully petitions for reinstatement after the mandatory waiting period. He is prohibited from:
— Practicing law in any form in the State of New York; — Acting as a principal, agent, clerk, or employee of any attorney in a legal capacity; — Appearing as an attorney before any court, tribunal, or public authority; — Providing legal opinions, legal advice, or presenting himself as an attorney in any context.
Any violation of these prohibitions constitutes the unauthorized practice of law under New York Judiciary Law § 478 — a criminal offense carrying potential jail time and fines.
Beyond the professional consequences, Dougherty faces the ongoing obligations of his criminal sentence, including the payment of $1,721,600 in restitution to 30 victims. Restitution obligations in New York criminal cases are enforceable as civil judgments and follow the convicted defendant regardless of bankruptcy or other proceedings in most circumstances.
Who Was Terrance J. Dougherty?
According to Avvo.com, Dougherty was a real estate attorney in Floral Park, New York. He attended the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, graduating in 2016. He acquired his law license in New York in 2017. Martindale
Dougherty practiced in the Tenth Judicial District — Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island — an area with an active real estate market where attorneys routinely handle large sums of client funds in connection with residential and commercial transactions. His practice area placed him in daily contact with the kind of financial flows that became the vehicle for his criminal scheme.
He had been licensed for approximately eight years before his conviction — the entirety of his legal career.
Members of the public who believe they may have been victimized by Dougherty’s scheme and have not yet been identified as part of the restitution order may wish to contact the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District or consult with a civil attorney about their options. Victims of attorney misconduct who suffered financial harm may also be eligible for compensation from the New York Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, which compensates clients who suffer financial losses due to the dishonest conduct of New York attorneys.
Members of the public who wish to verify the current status of any New York attorney may search the NYS OCA Attorney Search portal.
The Broader Pattern: Felony Convictions and Automatic Disbarment
Dougherty’s case is one of two confirmed 2026 New York disbarments based on felony convictions covered by this publication. Evie P. Jeang was disbarred by the First Department on March 5, 2026, following reciprocal discipline based on her California disbarment for misappropriating over $4 million in escrow funds and falsifying bank records.
The pattern reflects New York’s strict approach to attorney felony convictions — one that parallels, though differs in procedure from, the approach taken in other jurisdictions. In Florida, for example, felony convictions trigger an automatic interim suspension under Rule 3-7.2(f) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, followed by a full referee sanctions hearing — a process that resulted in the suspensions of Teresa Schiele Roper and Augustus Sol Invictus in the Florida Bar’s January 2026 disciplinary cycle. New York’s approach is more direct: the felony conviction itself is the disbarment, with no separate sanctions hearing required.
For a comprehensive overview of how New York attorney discipline works from complaint through final order, see the NYSBA Guide to Attorney Discipline (2023).
Reinstatement
Under New York law, a disbarred attorney may petition for reinstatement after seven years from the effective date of disbarment. Given that Dougherty’s disbarment rests on 14 felony counts — including a first-degree fraud scheme targeting 30 people — and a restitution obligation exceeding $1.7 million, any reinstatement petition would face an extraordinarily high burden of proof. A petitioner seeking reinstatement must demonstrate rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and that reinstatement would not be contrary to the public interest. Full satisfaction of the restitution obligation would almost certainly be a threshold requirement.
