Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department accepted Mark Jonathan Nussbaum’s resignation from the New York bar pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.10. The court held that his description of the allegations concerning his handling of funds in an IOLA account sufficiently identified the specific nature of the misconduct under investigation, despite the Attorney Grievance Committee’s objections. His resignation resulted in disbarment and striking his name from the roll of attorneys, effective nunc pro tunc to July 9, 2025.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether respondent's resignation affidavit sufficiently identified the specific nature of the professional-misconduct allegations as required by 22 NYCRR 1240.10(a) and Appendix A despite not providing factual particulars.
- Whether the court should accept respondent's resignation and enter the resulting order of disbarment.
Holdings
- A resignation affidavit satisfies 22 NYCRR 1240.10 when it identifies the specific nature of the allegations under investigation; it need not recite factual particulars or evidence, particularly when additional detail could risk self-incrimination in a parallel criminal prosecution.
- The court may accept respondent's resignation pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.10 and disbar him, striking his name from the roll of New York attorneys effective nunc pro tunc to the date of his resignation affidavit.
Key quotations
“Notably, nothing in this rule requires a recitation of factual particulars or evidence in addition to identifying the "specific nature" of allegations, particularly in circumstances where providing additional detail would risk self-incrimination in a parallel criminal prosecution.” ([*1])
Factual background
Mark Jonathan Nussbaum was admitted to the New York bar in 2009 and maintained an office in the First Judicial Department. The Attorney Grievance Committee investigated alleged professional misconduct concerning the handling of funds in his IOLA account after the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection reported an account shortfall. Respondent had also been indicted on felony charges alleging theft of more than $1,000,000, and he sought to resign while acknowledging that he could not successfully defend against the allegations.
Procedural history
The Attorney Grievance Committee investigated respondent concerning an alleged shortfall in his IOLA escrow account. Respondent was also indicted on felony charges arising from alleged theft of more than $1,000,000. He moved to resign and consented to disbarment and possible restitution; the Committee opposed the motion, arguing that his affidavit did not sufficiently identify the specific misconduct under investigation. The Appellate Division granted the application and disbarred respondent nunc pro tunc to July 9, 2025.