In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided on the case of attorney Michael Kevin Feldman, who sought reinstatement to the practice of law after being suspended. The court's decision, issued on August 27, 2026, affects Feldman's ability to practice law in New York and addresses the requirements for reinstatement following a suspension.
The ruling is significant as it clarifies the standards and procedures for attorneys seeking to return to practice after disciplinary actions. It highlights the importance of compliance with court orders and the necessity for attorneys to demonstrate their character and fitness to practice law.
Michael Kevin Feldman was the respondent in this case, having previously faced suspension in October 2021 due to violations of the Judiciary Law § 468-a. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department acted as the petitioner in this matter. Feldman represented himself in the proceedings, seeking to overturn the previous suspension and return to legal practice.
The dispute arose when Feldman filed a motion for reinstatement, asserting that he had fulfilled all necessary conditions set forth by the court. His motion included an affidavit and various exhibits, which he submitted on April 22, 2026. The Attorney Grievance Committee responded to his motion, and additional correspondence was exchanged between the parties. The court reviewed these documents to determine whether Feldman met the criteria for reinstatement.
In its ruling, the court found that Feldman had satisfied the requirements outlined in the Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department. Specifically, the court noted that he had complied with the suspension order and demonstrated the requisite character and fitness to practice law. The court stated, "it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law." This indicates that the court believed reinstating Feldman was beneficial for the legal community and the public.
However, the court also took significant actions in its decision. While granting Feldman's motion for reinstatement, it simultaneously accepted his application for a nondisciplinary resignation. This means that although he was reinstated, his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in New York. The court ordered that he must refrain from practicing law in any capacity within the state.
The court's opinion was issued by a panel of judges, including Pritzker, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Mackey, and Ryba, who all concurred with the decision. Their agreement emphasizes the importance of the ruling and its implications for attorneys in similar situations.
This ruling has several implications for the legal community. Firstly, it reinforces the standards that attorneys must meet to be reinstated after a suspension. It also serves as a reminder that even if an attorney is reinstated, they may still face restrictions on their ability to practice law. This dual outcome highlights the court's responsibility to protect the integrity of the legal profession while also considering the individual circumstances of attorneys seeking to return to practice.
Going forward, this case may influence how other attorneys approach their own reinstatement requests after disciplinary actions. It sets a precedent for ensuring that attorneys demonstrate compliance with court orders and maintain the necessary character and fitness to practice law. This ruling may also prompt discussions about the processes and standards for attorney discipline and reinstatement in New York.
As for what’s next for Feldman, it is unclear if he will appeal the decision or pursue any further legal actions. The court's ruling effectively ends his ability to practice law in New York unless he can meet the requirements for future reinstatement. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion.