Cheryl G. Weisbard, an attorney admitted to practice in New York since 1982, has successfully resigned from the New York bar. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York accepted her resignation on September 3, 2026. This decision affects Weisbard's ability to practice law in New York and highlights the process for attorneys wishing to resign for nondisciplinary reasons.
The court's ruling comes after Weisbard filed an application to resign, which the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department did not oppose. This decision is significant as it outlines the procedures for attorneys who choose to leave the profession without facing disciplinary actions.
Cheryl G. Weisbard, who lists her business address in Stanford, California, submitted her resignation application along with an affidavit sworn on July 23, 2026. The Attorney Grievance Committee reviewed her request and responded positively, allowing the court to move forward with her resignation.
The Appellate Division, which is composed of Judges Garry, Aarons, Pritzker, McShan, and Mackey, reviewed the case. They determined that Weisbard was eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, granting her application. The court stated, “Cheryl G. Weisbard's application for permission to resign is granted and her nondisciplinary resignation is accepted.”
As a result of the ruling, Weisbard's name has been officially removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York. This means she can no longer practice law in the state. The court also ordered her to refrain from any legal practice, stating, “Weisbard is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority.”
The ruling emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures when an attorney decides to resign. It ensures that attorneys who leave the profession do so in a manner that protects the integrity of the legal system. The decision also serves as a reminder to attorneys about the regulations governing their practice and the implications of resigning.
This case could have implications for other attorneys considering resignation. It sets a clear precedent that an attorney can resign without facing disciplinary actions if they follow the appropriate steps. This could encourage other attorneys in similar situations to consider resignation as an option.
Going forward, the ruling may lead to increased awareness among attorneys about the process of resigning from the bar. It may also prompt discussions about the reasons attorneys choose to leave the profession and how those reasons are handled by the legal system.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential future actions by Weisbard or if she has plans to practice law in another state. The court's decision is final, and there is no indication that Weisbard intends to appeal the ruling.
In conclusion, the Appellate Division's acceptance of Cheryl G. Weisbard's resignation marks a significant moment in her legal career and sets a clear example for other attorneys considering similar actions. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures while also allowing attorneys the option to exit the profession without facing disciplinary consequences.