In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York accepted the resignation of attorney Andrew MacNeill Wagner. This ruling, made on November 5, 2026, allows Wagner to resign from the New York bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The decision is significant as it highlights the process through which attorneys can leave the profession without facing disciplinary action.

Wagner, who was admitted to practice law in New York in 2010, filed his application for resignation with the court. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (AGC) did not oppose his request, facilitating a smooth process for Wagner's resignation. This ruling affects Wagner, who will no longer be allowed to practice law in New York, and it serves as a reminder of the protocols surrounding attorney resignations.

The background of the case involves Andrew MacNeill Wagner, who has been practicing law since his admission to the bar. He currently lists a business address in Washington, D.C. Wagner sought to resign from the New York bar without any disciplinary issues prompting his departure. The AGC, which oversees attorney conduct and discipline, reviewed his application and determined that there were no objections to his resignation.

The case reached the Appellate Division after Wagner submitted an affidavit on October 13, 2026, outlining his reasons for resigning. The AGC provided a response on October 29, 2026, indicating their support for Wagner's application. This led to the court's decision to grant his resignation.

The court ruled that Wagner's application for permission to resign was granted, stating, "Andrew MacNeill Wagner's application for permission to resign is granted and his nondisciplinary resignation is accepted." The judges involved in this decision included Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald, and McShan, JJ. The court's ruling officially strikes Wagner's name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York.

As part of the ruling, the court ordered Wagner to cease practicing law in New York. It stated that he is "forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority." Additionally, Wagner must surrender any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him within 30 days of the decision.

This ruling has implications for Wagner's future as he is now prohibited from practicing law in New York or holding himself out as an attorney. It also underscores the importance of the resignation process for attorneys who wish to leave the profession without facing disciplinary action. The decision sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future, allowing attorneys to resign without the stigma of disciplinary issues.

Going forward, this ruling may influence other attorneys considering resignation in New York. They may feel encouraged to pursue nondisciplinary resignations if they know the process is straightforward and supported by the AGC. This decision also reinforces the AGC's role in overseeing attorney conduct and the resignation process.

As for what’s next, it is unclear if Wagner plans to appeal this decision, as the court filing did not provide details on any potential appeal. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling. However, the decision could inspire discussions about attorney resignations in New York and the processes involved.