When Simone Melissa Gold entered the United States Capitol building on January 6, 2021, she was a licensed physician and a licensed attorney two credentials that together represent years of education, sworn professional obligations, and a public trust that few people in any field carry simultaneously. She was also, in that moment, breaking federal law.
Four years later, Gold has a presidential pardon. What she does not have — and will not have until at least September 2026 is a New York law license.
On February 18, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department suspended Gold from the practice of law for five years, effective March 20, 2026. The court’s ruling made a point that has significant implications for every licensed professional who participated in the events of January 6: a presidential pardon erases a federal criminal conviction for federal legal purposes. It does not erase the conduct. And it does not bind a state bar’s independent authority to determine who is fit to hold a law license.
The suspension of Simone Gold is not, at its core, a political story. It is an accountability story — one that asks what it means to be an officer of the court, and whether the answer changes depending on who is watching.
Background: Who Is Simone Melissa Gold?
Simone Melissa Gold is an American doctor known for her opposition to the COVID-19 vaccines. She is the founder of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization known for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. Before her arrest and guilty plea for participating in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, she had gained attention when a video of an America’s Frontline Doctors press conference in front of the US Supreme Court Building went viral in July 2020, during which she touted the supposed benefits of hydroxychloroquine, despite evidence that it is ineffective as a COVID-19 treatment. The Florida Bar
Gold was born and raised on Long Island, New York. She graduated from the City College of New York at age 19 and received her Doctor of Medicine degree from the Chicago Medical School in 1989. After obtaining a medical license in California, Gold attended Stanford Law School, graduating in 1993. The Florida Bar She was admitted to the New York Bar that same year. The combination of an M.D. and a J.D. from Stanford placed her among a small and highly credentialed class of dual-licensed professionals — credentials that made her subsequent conduct, and its consequences, all the more notable.
January 5–6, 2021: The Capitol Breach
On January 5, 2021, Gold spoke at a rally in Washington, D.C., telling attendees to refuse to be vaccinated for COVID-19. The next day she took part in the Capitol attack. She spoke from the rotunda of the Capitol and was later arrested for her participation in the storming, having admitted she entered the building. The Florida Bar
Gold and her companion were seen on video footage in the middle of a crowd attempting to push past law enforcement officials to get inside. She then gave the speech she had planned to give at the rally in the rotunda of the Capitol building. Gold said that she spent approximately 20 minutes in the Capitol. Gold admitted entering the Capitol building, saying that she did not know it was illegal to do so and that she did not witness any violence. The Florida Bar
The Criminal Case: Conviction, Sentence, and Pardon
Gold eventually pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor and was sentenced to 60 days in prison and a $9,500 fine. She served her sentence at a federal prison in Miami, and was released on September 9, 2022. The Florida Bar
The decision stems from her conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on February 8, 2022, for knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, a class A misdemeanor. ALABnews
On January 20, 2025, the first day of the second presidency of Donald Trump, Gold was pardoned along with nearly every other participant in the Capitol riot. The Florida Bar The second category of Trump’s clemency consisted of “full, complete, and unconditional” pardons granted to every other defendant convicted in relation to the events of January 6. Wikipedia
For Gold, the pardon was the beginning of a legal argument — not the end of her disciplinary exposure.
The New York Disciplinary Proceeding
The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District initiated the proceedings, leading to a decision and order on motion dated September 26, 2023, which directed Gold to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken. Gold subsequently moved to stay enforcement of the court’s decision, sought a declaration that her federal offense was similar to a violation-level offense under New York Penal Law, and requested that the matter be remitted to the Grievance Committee. ALABnews
Gold’s legal strategy in the disciplinary proceeding involved three distinct arguments. First, she sought to delay the proceedings through a stay motion. Second, she argued that her federal misdemeanor conviction should be treated as equivalent to a minor traffic-level offense under New York state law — which, if accepted, would have significantly reduced the available discipline. Third, she sought to send the case back to the Grievance Committee for further consideration rather than letting the court proceed to a final sanction.
The court denied all three motions.
Following hearings in March 2024, a Special Referee filed a report in May 2024, concluding that Gold had not demonstrated why a final order of public discipline should not be issued. The Grievance Committee then moved to confirm the Special Referee’s report and impose discipline. Gold opposed, seeking disaffirmation of the report and referral of the matter back to the Grievance Committee. ALABnews
The Presidential Pardon: No Shield Against Bar Discipline
The most significant legal issue in the Ferrara case was Gold’s argument — implicit in her entire litigation posture — that the presidential pardon should affect the disciplinary outcome.
The court noted that while Gold received a presidential pardon for her conviction, it did not nullify the basis for the disciplinary proceeding. ALABnews
This holding reflects a well-established principle in attorney discipline law: a pardon restores certain civil rights and removes the criminal conviction for federal purposes, but it does not erase the underlying conduct or bind a state bar’s independent assessment of fitness to practice. The New York Court of Appeals and Appellate Divisions have consistently held that attorney disciplinary proceedings are civil, not criminal, in nature — and that a pardon issued in a criminal proceeding has no operative effect on a separate civil regulatory inquiry into professional fitness.
The practical consequence is straightforward: Gold’s plea agreement admissions — that she entered a restricted building during a joint session of Congress certifying a presidential election result — remained before the court as established facts, regardless of what happened to the criminal conviction itself.
Reframing Conduct: The Aggravating Factor
The court also considered Gold’s admissions in her plea agreement, where she confirmed the accuracy of the statement of offense describing her actions. The court found that Gold attempted to reframe her conduct in the disciplinary proceeding, which it considered an aggravating factor. ALABnews
This finding is notable. Gold had, in her criminal plea, confirmed the facts underlying the conviction. In the disciplinary proceeding, she apparently sought to characterize those same facts differently — in a way the court found inconsistent with her prior admissions. Attempting to minimize or reframe conduct that has already been admitted in a sworn proceeding is a well-recognized aggravating factor in attorney discipline cases. It signals to the disciplinary tribunal that the attorney lacks genuine insight into the seriousness of their conduct — which is relevant to the risk of future harm.
The February 18, 2026 Suspension Order
On Wednesday, February 18, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department suspended attorney Simone Melissa Gold, formerly known as Simone Tizes, from practicing law for five years, effective March 20, 2026. ALABnews
The court’s order mandates that Gold cannot apply for reinstatement until September 20, 2030, and must demonstrate that she has refrained from practicing law, complied with the court’s directives, adhered to rules governing suspended attorneys, fulfilled continuing legal education requirements, and conducted herself appropriately during her suspension. ALABnews
The court denied Gold’s motions to stay enforcement, declare the federal offense similar to a state violation, and remit the matter to the Grievance Committee. The order also stipulates that Gold must comply with rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys and refrain from practicing law in any capacity during her suspension. If Gold possesses a secure pass from the Office of Court Administration, it must be returned. ALABnews
The Broader Context: January 6 and the Bar
Gold’s suspension is one of the most publicly prominent attorney discipline cases arising from the January 6 Capitol breach. She is not the only licensed attorney who participated in the events of that day, and state bars across the country have handled disciplinary proceedings against attorney participants in various ways.
The New York court’s ruling that a presidential pardon does not nullify a bar disciplinary proceeding is consistent with how most state bars have approached January 6-related discipline. The conduct itself — not just the criminal conviction — is the subject of the professional responsibility inquiry.
This case also sits alongside the Ethics Reporter’s coverage of a formal complaint against the Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District, the same Second Department body that oversees attorney discipline in the Hudson Valley counties. That complaint, concerning the Chair of the Ninth District Grievance Committee and her law partner’s undisclosed ties to a resigned judge, is published in full at /susan-yellen-amy-eisenberg-ethics-complaint-eisenpress.
For the full record of New York attorney disciplinary actions covered by this publication in 2026, see the ALABnews New York disciplinary coverage page.
Reinstatement
Gold may not apply for reinstatement until September 20, 2030 — a date that reflects the full five-year suspension period running from the effective date of March 20, 2026. At that time, any reinstatement petition would require her to demonstrate that she has refrained from practicing law during the suspension, complied fully with all court orders, fulfilled her continuing legal education requirements, and conducted herself in a manner consistent with the standards required of New York attorneys.
The aggravating factor found by the court — her attempt to reframe her conduct in the disciplinary proceeding — would likely be weighed in any future reinstatement hearing as well, requiring compelling evidence that Gold has developed genuine insight into the nature and seriousness of her conduct.
Members of the public who wish to verify the current license status of any New York attorney may search the NYS OCA Attorney Search portal. For a comprehensive overview of how New York attorney discipline works, the NYSBA Guide to Attorney Discipline (2023) is the most thorough public reference available.
