In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York accepted attorney Rachel Amy Putterman's resignation from the New York bar. This decision, made on September 24, 2026, affects Putterman, who has been a practicing attorney since 1995. The ruling is significant as it emphasizes the process for attorneys wishing to resign for nondisciplinary reasons.
Putterman, who resides in Roslindale, Massachusetts, sought to resign without facing any disciplinary action. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, which oversees attorney conduct in New York, indicated that it did not oppose her application. This case highlights the procedures available for attorneys who choose to step away from their practice voluntarily.
The case began when Putterman filed an affidavit on May 14, 2026, expressing her desire to resign. Following this, the Deputy Chief Attorney for the Attorney Grievance Committee responded on September 15, 2026, confirming that Putterman was eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons. The court reviewed these documents before making its decision.
On September 24, 2026, the court ruled in favor of Putterman, stating, “Upon reading Putterman's affidavit... and having determined that Putterman is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant her application and accept her resignation.” The ruling was issued by a panel of judges including Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, McShan, and Mackey.
The court's decision means that Putterman's name will be removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York, effective immediately. This ruling also prohibits her from practicing law in any capacity within the state. The court ordered that she must refrain from appearing as an attorney before any public authority and must surrender any Attorney Secure Pass issued to her within 30 days of the decision.
This ruling sets a clear precedent for other attorneys considering resignation for nondisciplinary reasons. It illustrates that attorneys can step away from their practice without facing disciplinary actions if they follow the proper procedures. The decision also reinforces the importance of the Attorney Grievance Committee's role in reviewing such applications.
Going forward, this ruling may encourage other attorneys contemplating resignation to consider the nondisciplinary route. It provides a structured process for resigning that does not involve the complexities of disciplinary proceedings. This could lead to more attorneys resigning without the stigma of disciplinary action, thus maintaining the integrity of the legal profession.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Putterman has any pending legal matters or if she plans to practice law in another jurisdiction. It remains to be seen if she will pursue legal work outside New York.
The court's decision is final, and there is no indication that Putterman plans to appeal this ruling. However, her resignation does not prevent her from seeking to practice law again in the future, should she choose to reapply for admission in New York or another jurisdiction.