In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York accepted the resignation of attorney Edwin Renken Blomquist Jr. This decision, made on October 15, 2026, allows Blomquist to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The ruling affects Blomquist, who has practiced law since 1992, and signals a formal end to his legal career in New York.
The case, known as Matter of Blomquist, was filed under docket number PM-230-26. The court's decision is significant because it highlights the process through which attorneys can resign from the bar, even when there are no disciplinary actions against them. This ruling is particularly relevant for attorneys considering retirement or a career change.
Edwin Renken Blomquist Jr. has been a practicing attorney since his admission to the bar in 1992. He is based in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, and previously listed a business address in Boston, Massachusetts, with the Office of Court Administration. Blomquist sought to resign from the New York bar, citing nondisciplinary reasons. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC) reviewed his application and indicated that it did not oppose his resignation.
To process his resignation, Blomquist submitted an affidavit sworn on August 21, 2026, which was filed on September 2, 2026. The AGC responded to his application with a letter dated September 28, 2026. After reviewing these documents, the court determined that Blomquist met the eligibility requirements for resignation under the relevant rules.
The court ruled, "Edwin Renken Blomquist Jr.'s application for permission to resign is granted and his nondisciplinary resignation is accepted." The ruling was made by a panel of judges, including Pritzker, J.P., Ceresia, Fisher, Powers, and Cocoran.
As part of the court's order, Blomquist's name has been officially removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York, effective immediately. Additionally, he is prohibited from practicing law in any capacity within the state. This includes acting as an attorney, agent, clerk, or employee of another attorney. The court also ordered Blomquist to refrain from giving legal opinions or advice and to stop presenting himself as an attorney in New York.
This ruling has important implications for Blomquist. By accepting his resignation, the court has formally ended his legal practice in New York, allowing him to focus on other pursuits without the obligations of maintaining an active law license. The decision also serves as a reminder of the processes available for attorneys who wish to step away from the profession without facing disciplinary actions.
The acceptance of Blomquist's resignation does not set a new legal precedent but reinforces existing procedures for attorneys seeking to resign. It clarifies that attorneys can resign for nondisciplinary reasons, provided they meet the necessary criteria. This ruling may encourage other attorneys in similar situations to consider resigning if they no longer wish to practice law.
Going forward, the decision may influence how other attorneys view the resignation process. It highlights that resignation is a viable option for those who may wish to leave the profession without facing disciplinary issues. The ruling could also prompt discussions among legal professionals about the reasons for resigning and the implications of such decisions.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases. However, since the court accepted Blomquist's resignation for nondisciplinary reasons, it is unlikely that he will pursue any further legal action regarding this decision.