Matter of Kernan
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- 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 02764
Review of a show-cause proceeding seeking reciprocal attorney discipline based on federal-court orders and a prior interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a).
Summary
The Appellate Division (Fourth Department) reviewed reciprocal-discipline proceedings against attorney James Matthew Kernan after federal courts suspended him for misconduct. The court found Kernan filed cases in the Southern District of New York without admission there, made false statements about his admission status, and was suspended by the Southern and Eastern Districts and by the Second Circuit. Kernan's responses did not show lack of due process or inadequate proof. Considering mitigation and significant aggravating factors, including a prior felony-based suspension and other disciplinary findings, the court ordered Kernan disbarred.
Issues Decided
- Whether reciprocal discipline by the Appellate Division is appropriate based on federal courts' disciplinary orders against the attorney.
- Whether the attorney's submissions showed that the foreign proceedings deprived him of due process or otherwise foreclosed reciprocal discipline.
- What sanction is appropriate given the attorney's misconduct, mitigating statements, and prior disciplinary history.
Court's Reasoning
Under 22 NYCRR 1240.13(c), reciprocal discipline may be imposed unless the respondent shows lack of due process, insufficient proof, or that discipline would be unjust. Kernan's submissions did not establish any of those defenses. The court weighed mitigation (his claim that unauthorized practice was inadvertent) against significant aggravating factors: prior felony conviction, prior five-year suspension, multiple federal suspensions, and findings of untrustworthiness by the Department of Financial Services. Those considerations supported disbarment as the appropriate sanction.
Authorities Cited
- 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)
- 22 NYCRR 1240.13(c)
- Matter of Kernan (prior disciplinary decision)73 AD3d 219 (4th Dept 2010)
Parties
- Respondent
- James Matthew Kernan
- Petitioner
- Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District
- Judge
- Curran, J.P.
- Judge
- Bannister, J.
- Judge
- Montour, J.
- Judge
- Hannah, J.
Key Dates
- Admission to practice in New York
- 1977-02-22
- Southern District Committee order finding unauthorized filings
- 2024-03-25
- Eastern District suspension
- 2024-05-15
- Southern District prohibition after mitigation
- 2025-06-23
- Second Circuit reciprocal suspension
- 2025-09-18
- Interim suspension by this Court
- 2026-02-19
- Decision date
- 2026-05-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking review
If Kernan wishes to challenge the disbarment, he should consult counsel about filing an application for leave to appeal or other appropriate review in the New York Court of Appeals within applicable deadlines.
- 2
Notify clients and transition files
Affected clients and opposing counsel should be notified and arrangements made for transfer of files or appointment of successor counsel as required by professional rules.
- 3
Comply with discipline reporting
Kernan should follow any reporting or administrative requirements imposed by the court or grievance committee, including surrendering his attorney identification and ceasing practice.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The Appellate Division disbarred James Matthew Kernan, removing his license to practice law in New York.
- Why was he disbarred?
- Because he filed cases in a federal court without being admitted there, made false statements about his admission status, and has a significant prior disciplinary and criminal history indicating untrustworthiness.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Kernan is directly affected — he loses his right to practice law in New York; clients and pending matters involving him may be impacted and require new counsel.
- Can this decision be appealed?
- The Appellate Division's orders in attorney-discipline matters may be subject to further review by the Court of Appeals, so seeking further appellate review is a possible next step for the respondent.
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 Kernan - 2026 NY Slip Op 02764 Matter of Kernan 2026 NY Slip Op 02764 May 1, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Opinion And Order MATTER OF JAMES MATTHEW KERNAN, A SUSPENDED ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on May 1, 2026 - Present: Curran, J.P., Bannister, Montour, And Hannah, JJ. (Filed May 1, 2026.) OPINION AND ORDER Final order of disbarment entered. Per Curiam Opinion: Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on February 22, 1977. By order entered February 19, 2026, this Court granted the Grievance Committee's motion for an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (a), suspending respondent on an interim basis for misconduct underlying several orders of discipline issued by certain federal courts in 2024 and 2025. Our order also directed respondent to show cause, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 (a), why a final order of reciprocal discipline should not be imposed based on that misconduct. The misconduct at issue is primarily set forth in an order of the Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District), issued on March 25, 2024, which found that respondent filed several cases in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York without having been admitted to practice law before that Court. The Southern District also found that, on several occasions thereafter, respondent made false statements to a District Court Judge regarding his admission status. After respondent was afforded an opportunity to submit matters in mitigation, the Southern District issued an order on June 23, 2025, prohibiting respondent from practicing law before that Court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a reciprocal order of suspension on September 18, 2025. The Grievance Committee also advised this Court that, on May 15, 2024, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an order suspending respondent from the practice of law before that Court. Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 (c), an attorney disciplined in another jurisdiction may be disciplined by this Court for the underlying misconduct unless we find "that the procedure in the foreign jurisdiction deprived the respondent of due process of law, that there was insufficient proof that the respondent committed the misconduct, or that the imposition of discipline would be unjust." In this case, we conclude that respondent's submissions to this Court in response to the show cause order fail to raise any factor that would preclude the imposition of reciprocal discipline based on the aforementioned federal court orders. In determining an appropriate sanction, we have considered respondent's submission in mitigation, including his statement that his unauthorized practice of law in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was inadvertent and caused by confusion regarding his admission status. We have also considered various factors in aggravation, such as respondent's relatively extensive disciplinary history, which includes the aforementioned federal court orders and a five-year suspension imposed by this Court in 2010 based on respondent's conviction of knowingly employing a convicted felon in the business of insurance, a federal felony ( Matter of Kernan , 73 AD3d 219, 220 [4th Dept 2010]). We also agree with the Southern District's finding that respondent has demonstrated "a continued disregard for his professional obligations" based on, inter alia, his felony conviction, the discipline previously imposed by this Court and various federal courts, and a determination by the New York State Department of Financial Services finding that, following his conviction, respondent violated Insurance Law § 1506 (c) (1) (A) inasmuch as he "demonstrated untrustworthiness as a controlling person" of Oriska Insurance Company ( Kernan v Emami , 192 AD3d 1629, 1629 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 908 [2021]). Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be disbarred.