New York attorney Lora Erin Como has been suspended from practicing law after she failed to cooperate with an investigation into her criminal conviction. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled on September 10, 2026, that Como's actions posed a threat to the public interest. This decision affects Como's ability to practice law while the investigation continues.
Como was admitted to practice law in New York in 2009 and resides in Saratoga County. In March 2026, she pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired in Schenectady County Court. Following her conviction, Como moved to vacate the judgment and also filed a complaint against the prosecutor involved in her case. However, in the process, she inadvertently disclosed her conviction to the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC).
After AGC received her self-report, they requested additional information regarding the circumstances surrounding her arrest and conviction. Como requested that AGC suspend its investigation, which was denied. Following an extension to respond, Como again asked for the investigation to be paused until her motion to vacate was resolved, but this request was also denied. Ultimately, Como indicated that she would not cooperate with AGC's investigation.
The AGC then moved for Como's interim suspension, citing her lack of cooperation as a violation of the rules governing attorney conduct. The court ruled that “the mere failure to comply with a lawful demand of AGC during its investigation is sufficient to form the basis for a suspension.” The judges involved in this ruling included Garry, P.J., Ceresia, McShan, Mackey, and Ryba.
The court found that Como's refusal to comply with AGC's lawful requests not only constituted professional misconduct but also jeopardized the effectiveness of the attorney disciplinary system. The ruling stated, “AGC has established that respondent's failure to respond to the notice and her failure to comply with its lawful requests threaten the public interest.” As a result, the court granted AGC's motion and suspended Como from practicing law indefinitely.
As part of the suspension, the court ordered Como to refrain from practicing law in any capacity while the investigation is ongoing. This means she cannot act as an attorney or counselor-at-law in New York, nor can she provide legal advice or hold herself out as an attorney. The court also reminded Como of her obligation to respond to further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months of the order, warning that failure to do so could lead to her disbarment without further notice.
This ruling sets a significant precedent regarding attorney conduct and the importance of cooperating with disciplinary investigations. It emphasizes that attorneys must comply with requests from the AGC to maintain their license to practice law. The decision may serve as a warning to other attorneys about the consequences of noncompliance with disciplinary procedures.
Looking ahead, Como has the option to appeal the suspension. She may also request a postsuspension hearing within 20 days from the date of the decision. If she does not comply with the court's orders or fails to respond to future proceedings, she could face disbarment.