The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has accepted the resignation of attorney Larry D. Sobel from the New York bar. This decision, made on August 6, 2026, affects Sobel, who has practiced law since 1984. His resignation comes for nondisciplinary reasons, and the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department has stated that it does not oppose his application.
In a legal landscape where attorneys must adhere to strict ethical standards, Sobel's case stands out as he voluntarily chose to resign without facing any disciplinary actions. This decision is significant as it highlights the process by which attorneys can exit the profession in New York, especially when they do so without any misconduct. Sobel's resignation will be effective immediately, and he is barred from practicing law in New York.
Larry D. Sobel, who is based in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, submitted his resignation application along with an affidavit on June 11, 2026. The Attorney Grievance Committee reviewed his request and confirmed that it does not oppose his resignation. The court's decision to accept his resignation underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession while allowing attorneys to step away when they choose.
The court's ruling was made by a panel of judges: Reynolds Fitzgerald, Ceresia, McShan, Mackey, and Ryba. They stated, "Upon reading Sobel's affidavit... and having determined that Sobel is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant his application and accept his resignation." This ruling indicates that Sobel met all necessary criteria for resignation without facing any allegations of wrongdoing.
As part of the ruling, the court ordered that Sobel's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York. This means that he can no longer practice law in any capacity within the state. Additionally, Sobel is required to surrender any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him within 30 days of the decision. This ruling ensures that Sobel cannot engage in any legal practice or offer legal advice in New York.
The decision to accept Sobel's resignation is noteworthy for several reasons. It reinforces the idea that attorneys can leave the profession without facing disciplinary actions, provided they meet the necessary requirements. This ruling may encourage other attorneys contemplating resignation to do so without fear of repercussions, as long as their reasons align with the court's guidelines.
Moving forward, this case sets a precedent for how nondisciplinary resignations are handled in New York. It clarifies the process and reassures attorneys that they can resign under certain conditions without facing scrutiny. This ruling may also influence how other states approach similar situations, as it highlights the importance of allowing attorneys to exit the profession gracefully.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any future implications for Sobel or if he plans to continue practicing law in another jurisdiction. However, the ruling clearly states that he is forbidden from practicing law in New York.
As of now, there are no indications that Sobel's resignation will be appealed. The court has accepted his application, and the Attorney Grievance Committee has shown no opposition. This case appears to be resolved, with Sobel's resignation effective immediately.