On Wednesday, February 4, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department disbarred attorney Jamie T. Ferrara. The disbarment was based on Ferrara’s failure to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation by the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District and conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer. UniCourt
Like the March 2026 disbarment of Lamon Darrell Bland by the First Judicial Department, Ferrara’s disbarment was not the product of a full evidentiary hearing or a finding of underlying client harm. It was the product of total silence. Ferrara received a formal disciplinary petition. He did not answer it. He received motions from the Grievance Committee. He did not oppose them. He was given every procedural opportunity to participate in the process that governs every licensed attorney in New York. He declined every one of them.
When an attorney defaults on every stage of a disciplinary proceeding — petition, motion to deem charges established, motion for immediate suspension — the court has only one reasonable response. That response is disbarment.
For the full record of New York attorney disciplinary actions in 2026, see the ALABnews New York disciplinary coverage page.
The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District
The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District oversees attorney discipline in Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, and Dutchess Counties — the same committee that is the subject of the formal misconduct complaint filed by The Ethics Reporter against its Chair, Susan G. Yellen, Esq., and her law partner Amy M. Eisenberg, Esq., in connection with the Eisenpress judicial misconduct scandal. That complaint, published in full by this publication, is available at /susan-yellen-amy-eisenberg-ethics-complaint-eisenpress.
The Ferrara case is a straightforward exercise of that committee’s core disciplinary function: investigating attorney misconduct, serving formal charges, and seeking appropriate discipline when attorneys refuse to engage with the process.
The Disciplinary Proceeding
The Grievance Committee initiated a disciplinary proceeding against Ferrara, who was admitted to the New York State Bar on July 25, 2007. The committee served Ferrara with a notice of petition and a verified petition on October 22, 2025, outlining two charges of professional misconduct. These charges stemmed from Ferrara’s alleged failure to cooperate with the disciplinary investigation and failure to appear or produce documents pursuant to a judicial subpoena, violating the Rules of Professional Conduct. UniCourt
The charges are straightforward in their nature. New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct impose on every licensed attorney the obligation to cooperate with disciplinary investigations. Rule 8.4(d) prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Failing to appear for a compelled examination under oath and failing to produce documents pursuant to a judicial subpoena — a court order — is not a gray area. It is a direct defiance of the court’s authority and a violation of the foundational obligations every attorney accepts when they are licensed.
When a judicial subpoena is issued in connection with a disciplinary investigation, it carries the full force of a court order. Ignoring it is not merely non-cooperation. It is contempt of the disciplinary process itself.
Total Default: No Answer, No Opposition, No Appearance
Ferrara did not respond to the petition by filing an answer or requesting additional time to respond. Subsequently, the Grievance Committee moved to deem the charges established based on Ferrara’s default and to impose appropriate discipline. The committee also sought to immediately suspend Ferrara from practicing law, citing professional misconduct that threatened public interest. Ferrara did not oppose either motion. UniCourt
This is a complete default at every level of the proceeding:
— He did not answer the verified petition served on October 22, 2025. — He did not request additional time to respond. — He did not oppose the Grievance Committee’s motion to deem the charges established. — He did not oppose the Grievance Committee’s separate motion for immediate suspension. — He did not appear at any stage of the proceedings.
Under New York disciplinary procedure, an attorney’s failure to answer a verified petition operates as an admission of the charges contained in it. By saying nothing, Ferrara admitted everything.
The February 4, 2026 Disbarment Order
The court granted the Grievance Committee’s motion to deem the charges established. The court ordered that the charges in the petition dated October 17, 2025, were deemed established, and effective immediately, Ferrara was disbarred. His name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. The Grievance Committee’s separate motion to immediately suspend Ferrara was denied as academic due to the disbarment. UniCourt
The denial of the suspension motion as “academic” is procedurally significant. The Grievance Committee had filed two separate motions: one to deem the charges established and impose discipline, and a second filed concurrently to immediately suspend Ferrara pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings. Because the court granted the first motion and imposed disbarment directly, the suspension motion became moot. There was nothing left to suspend. The court went straight to the ultimate sanction, making the interim suspension step unnecessary.
The court further ordered that Ferrara comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys, as outlined in 22 NYCRR 1240.15. He is prohibited from practicing law in any form, appearing as an attorney, giving legal advice, or holding himself out as an attorney. UniCourt
The Significance of the Default Disbarment
Ferrara’s case is part of a consistent pattern across New York jurisdictions in 2026: attorneys who refuse to engage with the disciplinary process face disbarment not because their underlying conduct has been proven at hearing, but because their silence is itself proof of unfitness.
This is the same principle that produced the disbarment of Lamon Darrell Bland by the First Department on March 5, 2026 — also covered by this publication. In Bland’s case, the pathway was 22 NYCRR 1240.9(b), which converts an interim suspension into disbarment after six months of non-engagement. In Ferrara’s case, the pathway was a direct default on a verified petition — a faster route to the same destination.
Both cases reflect a deliberate structural feature of New York’s disciplinary system: the process has no tolerance for complete non-participation. An attorney who will not answer a petition, will not appear for an examination, will not produce documents, and will not even oppose the motion that ends their career has, by that course of conduct, answered the only question that matters — whether they are fit to hold a law license.
The answer the court draws from that silence is no.
Consequences of the Disbarment
Ferrara’s disbarment is comprehensive and effective immediately. He is prohibited from:
Practicing law in any form in New York State; 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 or advice; Holding himself out as an attorney in any context.
Any violation of these prohibitions constitutes unauthorized practice of law under New York Judiciary Law § 478 — a criminal offense in New York.
Members of the public who wish to verify whether a New York attorney is currently licensed and in good standing may search the NYS OCA Attorney Search portal. Members of the public who wish to file a complaint against an attorney practicing in the Ninth Judicial District — Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, or Dutchess County — may contact the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District directly.
Reinstatement
Under New York law, a disbarred attorney may petition for reinstatement after seven years from the effective date of disbarment. Any petition by Ferrara would require him to demonstrate rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and that reinstatement would not be contrary to the public interest — and would almost certainly require him to address the underlying investigation that produced the disciplinary charges in the first instance.
An attorney who defaulted on every stage of the disciplinary proceeding that led to their disbarment faces a particularly difficult reinstatement path. The Appellate Division would need compelling evidence that the conduct and attitude that produced the default had been fundamentally and credibly changed before it would consider restoring the license.
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.
