What did the court decide?

The court granted the attorney's motion and reinstated him to the practice of law effective immediately.

Who is affected by this decision?

The decision affects the respondent attorney, the Attorney Grievance Committee, and clients or courts who may rely on the attorney's ability to practice in New York.

Why was he reinstated?

The court found he satisfied the reinstatement rule requirements, complied with the suspension order and rules, showed the necessary character and fitness, and that reinstatement was in the public interest.

Can this decision be challenged?

Reinstatement decisions by the Appellate Division are final on the merits; further review would generally require an extraordinary petition to the Court of Appeals, which is uncommon.

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Asaka)

Docket PM-71-26

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherGranted

Filed: Apr 16, 2026 · 2 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Granted
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02322
Docket: PM-71-26

Motion for reinstatement to the practice of law following suspension by May 2019 order of this Court

Summary

The Appellate Division, Third Department, granted Anson Carlton Asaka's motion for reinstatement to the practice of law after his May 2019 suspension. The court reviewed affidavits and correspondence, found by clear and convincing evidence that Asaka satisfied the governing reinstatement rule, complied with the suspension order and court rules, possesses the necessary character and fitness, and that reinstatement served the public interest. The court ordered that Asaka be reinstated effective immediately.

Issues Decided

Whether the suspended attorney satisfied the Appellate Division's reinstatement requirements under the Third Department rules.
Whether the respondent complied with the suspension order and disciplinary rules.
Whether respondent demonstrated the requisite character and fitness to resume practice.
Whether reinstatement would be in the public interest.

Court's Reasoning

The court determined by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent met the specific reinstatement criteria of the Third Department rules, complied with the prior suspension order and court disciplinary rules, and demonstrated the necessary character and fitness. Because these statutory and rule-based prerequisites were satisfied and reinstatement served the public interest, the court concluded reinstatement was appropriate and effective immediately.

Authorities Cited

Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department § 806.1622 NYCRR § 806.16
Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters § 1240.1622 NYCRR § 1240.16
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (prior suspension order)172 AD3d 1706 (3d Dept 2019)

Parties

Petitioner: Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department
Respondent: Anson Carlton Asaka
Attorney: Monica A. Duffy
Attorney: Alison M. Coan

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-16
Calendar date: 2026-03-23
Affidavit sworn: 2026-02-09
Supplemental affidavit: 2026-02-18
Committee correspondence: 2026-03-16
Prior suspension order: 2019-05-01

What You Should Do Next

1
Resume practice immediately
The respondent may begin practicing law in New York effective immediately but should confirm any administrative steps required by the Attorney Registration Office.
2
Notify clients and courts
If applicable, notify former or prospective clients, courts, and opposing counsel of reinstatement so representation can resume or filings can be undertaken.
3
Maintain compliance with rules
Continue to comply with professional responsibility rules and any conditions imposed by the court or grievance committee to avoid future discipline.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court granted the attorney's motion and reinstated him to the practice of law effective immediately.
Who is affected by this decision?: The decision affects the respondent attorney, the Attorney Grievance Committee, and clients or courts who may rely on the attorney's ability to practice in New York.
Why was he reinstated?: The court found he satisfied the reinstatement rule requirements, complied with the suspension order and rules, showed the necessary character and fitness, and that reinstatement was in the public interest.
Can this decision be challenged?: Reinstatement decisions by the Appellate Division are final on the merits; further review would generally require an extraordinary petition to the Court of Appeals, which is uncommon.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Asaka) - 2026 NY Slip Op 02322

Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a (Asaka)

2026 NY Slip Op 02322

April 16, 2026

Appellate Division, Third Department

In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Anson Carlton Asaka, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2923340.)

Decided and Entered:April 16, 2026

PM-71-26

Calendar Date: March 23, 2026

Before: Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers And Corcoran, JJ., Concur.

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Anson Carlton Asaka, Baltimore, Maryland, respondent pro se.

Motion by respondent for an order reinstating him to the practice of law following his suspension by May 2019 order of this Court (
Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a
, 172 AD3d 1706, 1710 [3d Dept 2019];
see
Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16; Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

Upon reading respondent's notice of motion and affidavit with exhibit sworn to February 9, 2026, respondent's supplemental affidavit with exhibit of February 18, 2026 and the March 16, 2026 responsive correspondence from the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, and having determined, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) respondent has satisfied the requirements of Rules of the Appellate Division, Third Department (22 NYCRR) § 806.16 (c) (5), (2) respondent has complied with the order of suspension and the rules of this Court, (3) respondent has the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and (4) it would be in the public interest to reinstate respondent to the practice of law (
see
Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]), it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law, effective immediately.

Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Powers and Corcoran, JJ., concur.