Matter of Rain
Docket PM-89-26
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
- Denied
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02719
- Docket
- PM-89-26
Motion for reinstatement following a two-year suspension imposed by the court after findings of professional misconduct
Summary
The Appellate Division, Third Department denied Mary Elizabeth Rain's motion for reinstatement to the New York bar following a two-year suspension imposed in 2018 for multiple professional misconduct violations committed while she served as a district attorney. The court applied the three-part reinstatement test requiring compliance with suspension terms, proof of character and fitness by clear and convincing evidence, and demonstration that reinstatement would serve the public interest. The court found Rain failed to show she had meaningfully addressed the misconduct that led to suspension and provided no concrete plans or assurances that reinstatement would not harm the public, so her motion was denied.
Issues Decided
- Whether the respondent demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she possesses the character and fitness required to practice law after suspension.
- Whether the respondent showed that reinstatement would be in the public interest and would not harm institutions or individuals served by the legal profession.
- Whether the respondent complied with the procedural and substantive requirements for reinstatement, including providing concrete plans for return to practice.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the established three-part reinstatement standard: compliance with suspension terms, proof of current character and fitness, and demonstration that reinstatement benefits the public. Although the respondent described advocacy work since suspension, the court found she did not meaningfully address the conduct that led to suspension nor provide tangible plans or assurances preventing future harm. Because she failed to meet the clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden on character/fitness and public-interest grounds, reinstatement was denied.
Authorities Cited
- Matter of Del Boccio241 AD3d 1615 (3d Dept 2025)
- Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters22 NYCRR § 1240.16(a)
- Matter of Sullivan153 AD3d 1484 (3d Dept 2017)
Parties
- Petitioner
- Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department
- Respondent
- Mary Elizabeth Rain
- Judge
- Garry, P.J.
- Judge
- Aarons, J.
- Judge
- Ceresia, J.
- Judge
- McShan, J.
- Judge
- Mackey, J.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-30
- Calendar date
- 2026-03-23
- Original suspension order (reported)
- 2018-06-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult disciplinary counsel
Retain or consult counsel experienced in attorney disciplinary reinstatement to identify and document steps addressing the misconduct and to prepare a stronger future application.
- 2
Document rehabilitation efforts
Assemble concrete, verifiable evidence of remedial actions (training, supervision, specific work plans, character references) showing meaningful remediation of the conduct that led to suspension.
- 3
Prepare a detailed reinstatement plan
Develop and include in any future application tangible details about proposed practice arrangements, supervision, and safeguards that will prevent recurrence and protect the public.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court denied Mary Elizabeth Rain's application to be reinstated to the bar, concluding she did not meet the required standard to show fitness to practice or that reinstatement would serve the public interest.
- Why was she originally suspended?
- She was suspended after findings that, while serving as district attorney, she committed multiple professional misconduct violations, including prosecutorial misconduct and failures involving grand jury subpoenas, use of interns, and disclosure of evidence.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The decision directly affects Rain by keeping her suspended from practicing law; it also protects the public and the integrity of the legal system by refusing reinstatement without clear assurances of rehabilitation.
- Can she seek reinstatement again?
- Yes, she may reapply for reinstatement in the future, but she will need to provide clear and convincing evidence that she has addressed the issues that led to suspension, detail concrete plans for practice, and show reinstatement would not harm the public.
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 Rain - 2026 NY Slip Op 02719 Matter of Rain 2026 NY Slip Op 02719 April 30, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department In the Matter of Mary Elizabeth Rain, a Suspended Attorney. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Mary Elizabeth Rain, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2720183) (Proceeding No. 1.) In the Matter of Mary Elizabeth Rain, a Suspended Attorney. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Mary Elizabeth Rain, Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2720183) (Proceeding No. 2.) Decided and Entered:April 30, 2026 PM-89-26 Calendar Date: March 23, 2026 Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Ceresia, Mcshan And Mackey, JJ. Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Lauren S. Cousineau of counsel), for petitioner. Hacker Murphy LLP, Troy (James C. Knox of counsel), for respondent. Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by the Fourth Department in 1996 and previously served as District Attorney of St. Lawrence County from 2013 to 2017. Following a hearing before a Court-appointed referee, we concluded that respondent, in her capacity as District Attorney, had violated 12 separate Rules of Professional Conduct ( see 162 AD3d 1458 [3d Dept 2018]). Specifically, based on prosecutorial misconduct found by this Court in People v Wright (133 AD3d 1097 [3d Dept 2015]), we concluded that respondent had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflecting on her fitness as a lawyer. Similarly, we found that respondent had violated various Rules of Professional Conduct through her improper use of grandy jury subpoenas, her unlawful use of student interns in her office and her failure to disclose Brady material during a homicide trial. Accordingly, we suspended respondent for two years by June 2018 order. Respondent now moves for her reinstatement, and petitioner opposes her motion. In addition to various procedural requirements, an attorney seeking reinstatement from a suspension must satisfy, by clear and convincing evidence, a three-part substantive test in order to establish his or her entitlement to relief ( see Matter of Del Boccio , 241 AD3d 1615, 1616 [3d Dept 2025]; Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a]). First, the attorney must demonstrate that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and all of the applicable Court rules ( see Matter of Shmulsky , 219 AD3d 1045, 1045 [3d Dept 2023]). Second, the attorney must demonstrate that he or she possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law ( see Matter of Njogu , 175 AD3d 800, 800 [3d Dept 2019]). Third, the attorney must demonstrate that it would be in the public interest to reinstate him or her to the practice of law, providing "assurances that no detriment would inure to the public by reason of the attorney's return to practice, and that his or her reinstatement would be of some tangible benefit to the public" ( Matter of Sullivan , 153 AD3d 1484, 1484 [3d Dept 2017]). Based on the record before us, we conclude that respondent has failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that she possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law, and that her reinstatement would benefit the public interest. While respondent has provided information concerning advocacy work that she has engaged in since her suspension, we conclude that she has not demonstrated that, in the intervening years since her suspension, she has meaningfully addressed the factors that led to her suspension in this state ( see Matter of Becker , 202 AD3d 1430, 1431 [3d Dept 2022]). Similarly, respondent's application materials failed to include any tangible details concerning her intentions were she to be reinstated ( see Matter of Cammarano , 169 AD3d 1251, 1252 [3d Dept 2019]), and likewise do not provide assurances that her reinstatement would cause no detriment to the institutions and individuals whom the legal profession is intended to serve ( see Matter of Paragano , 213 AD3d 1023, 1026 [3d Dept 2023]). Accordingly, we deny her motion ( see e.g. Matter of Del Boccio , 241 AD3d at 1616; Matter of Daigle , 223 AD3d 1083, 1084 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of Cammarano , 169 AD3d at 1252). Garry, P.J., Aarons, Ceresia, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur. ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is denied.