A New York court has accepted the resignation of attorney Kevin Patrick Shannon, who sought to leave the bar for nondisciplinary reasons. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York made this decision on September 3, 2026. This ruling affects Shannon, who has been practicing law since 2009, and it establishes a precedent for other attorneys seeking similar resignations.
Shannon, who currently resides in Saviese, Switzerland, filed his application to resign from the New York bar, which was not opposed by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department. The decision is significant as it highlights the process through which attorneys can resign without facing disciplinary action.
The case, known as Matter of Shannon, was filed under docket number PM-198-26. The court's ruling came after reviewing Shannon's affidavit and the response from the Attorney Grievance Committee. The committee's lack of opposition to Shannon's resignation indicates that there were no outstanding issues regarding his professional conduct that would necessitate a disciplinary process.
In its ruling, the court stated, "Kevin Patrick Shannon's application for permission to resign is granted and his nondisciplinary resignation is accepted." The decision was made by a panel of judges, including Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, McShan, and Mackey, JJ. The court ordered that Shannon's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York, effective immediately.
As part of the ruling, the court also commanded Shannon to refrain from practicing law in any capacity within New York State. This includes acting as a principal, agent, clerk, or employee for any legal practice. The court further instructed Shannon to surrender any Attorney Secure Pass issued to him within 30 days of the decision.
This ruling is important as it clarifies the process for attorneys wishing to resign without facing disciplinary actions. It sets a clear standard for future cases involving similar resignations. Shannon's case may encourage other attorneys who are considering resigning for nondisciplinary reasons to follow a similar path.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond just Kevin Patrick Shannon. It serves as a reminder to the legal community about the options available to attorneys who may wish to leave the profession without facing disciplinary consequences. This decision may influence how other attorneys approach their resignations in the future.
Going forward, this ruling may set a precedent for how the courts handle nondisciplinary resignations. It may lead to a more streamlined process for attorneys who wish to resign, making it easier for them to exit the profession without the complications of disciplinary actions.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases. However, the ruling stands as a clear decision by the court regarding the resignation of attorneys in New York.