The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has reinstated attorney Kevin Patrick Shannon to practice law after he successfully met the conditions set by the court following his suspension. This decision, made on May 28, 2026, impacts Shannon’s ability to return to the legal profession after a period of inactivity due to disciplinary actions.

Shannon, who had been suspended since October 2021, sought reinstatement through a motion filed with the court. The ruling is significant as it highlights the court's process for evaluating an attorney's fitness to practice law after a suspension. The court's decision not only affects Shannon but also serves as a precedent for other attorneys facing similar circumstances.

Background

The case, known as the Matter of Shannon (Docket PM-112-26), involves the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department as the petitioner against Shannon, the respondent. The dispute arose from Shannon's previous violations of Judiciary Law § 468-a, which led to his suspension from practicing law. The court had initially suspended him in 2021 due to these violations, which raised concerns about his professional conduct.

After serving his suspension, Shannon expressed a desire to return to the legal profession. He filed a motion for reinstatement, providing evidence of his compliance with the court's earlier order and the necessary legal requirements. The motion included his affidavit and correspondence with the Attorney Grievance Committee, which were reviewed by the court.

The Ruling

The court ruled in favor of Shannon's reinstatement, stating that he had demonstrated compliance with the suspension order and the rules governing attorney conduct. The judges involved in the decision included Reynolds Fitzgerald, J.P., Ceresia, Powers, Corcoran, and Ryba. The court noted, "respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court" and found that it would be in the public interest to reinstate him.

However, the court also set forth specific conditions for Shannon's reinstatement. He is required to complete several continuing legal education credits in areas such as Ethics and Professionalism, Diversity, Inclusion, and Elimination of Bias, or Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Data Protection. Additionally, he must provide proof of compliance with these conditions within 60 days of the court's order.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Shannon and the legal community. For Shannon, it means he can officially return to practicing law, provided he meets the outlined educational requirements. The decision also emphasizes the court's commitment to ensuring that attorneys maintain a standard of professionalism and ethics, even after facing disciplinary actions.

The ruling may set a precedent for other attorneys who find themselves in similar situations. It illustrates the court's willingness to reinstate attorneys who demonstrate compliance with disciplinary measures and the importance of continuing education in maintaining legal practice standards.

What's Next

Shannon has the option to either complete the required continuing education credits or file for a nondisciplinary resignation if he chooses not to return to practicing law. The court's decision allows him to clarify his status as an attorney while also ensuring that he adheres to the necessary standards. The case may not be appealed, as the ruling provides a clear path for Shannon's reinstatement or resignation.