In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has accepted the resignation of attorney Stephen Klar. The decision, made on September 3, 2026, allows Klar to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. This ruling affects Klar's ability to practice law in New York and highlights the process for attorneys seeking to leave the profession.
Stephen Klar, who was admitted to practice law in New York in 1993, submitted his resignation application to the court. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC) did not oppose his application, indicating that there were no disciplinary actions pending against him. The court's acceptance of his resignation means that Klar is no longer allowed to practice law in New York.
The case, known as Matter of Klar (docket number PM-191-26), arose when Klar filed an affidavit on June 30, 2026, expressing his desire to resign. The AGC reviewed his application and provided a response on August 25, 2026. The court determined that Klar met the eligibility criteria for a nondisciplinary resignation as outlined in the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters.
The ruling was issued by a panel of judges including Pritzker, Ceresia, Powers, Corcoran, and Ryba. The court stated, "Upon reading Klar's affidavit... and having determined that Klar is eligible to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, we grant his application and accept his resignation." This decision effectively strikes Klar's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York.
As part of the ruling, the court ordered that Klar must cease practicing law in any capacity within the state. This includes not appearing as an attorney before any court or providing legal advice. Additionally, he is required to surrender any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him within 30 days of the decision.
The acceptance of Klar's resignation is significant as it illustrates the process through which attorneys can resign without facing disciplinary actions. This ruling may serve as a precedent for other attorneys considering resignation under similar circumstances.
The impact of this decision extends beyond Klar himself. It reinforces the importance of maintaining ethical standards within the legal profession and provides a clear pathway for attorneys who wish to exit the field without facing sanctions. This ruling could encourage other attorneys to consider their options for resignation, knowing that there is a process in place that does not involve disciplinary consequences.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how other states handle similar cases. It serves as a reminder that attorneys have the option to resign for nondisciplinary reasons, and that such resignations can be processed efficiently by the courts. The AGC's non-opposition to Klar's application may also indicate a willingness to support attorneys seeking to leave the profession amicably.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any future actions or potential appeals. However, since the AGC did not oppose Klar's resignation, it seems unlikely that there will be further legal disputes in this matter.