IN RE: Jordan Jessica TAPIA (2026)

In the Matter of Jordan Jessica Tapia, an attorney

Respondent Jordan J. Tapia was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 17, 2018.  The First Judicial Department retains jurisdiction over respondent as the admitting Department (see Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.7[a][2] ).

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) received a complaint against respondent on November 22, 2024.  Respondent answered the complaint on December 17, 2024.  The AGC then asked respondent to provide by May 16, 2025, a summary of the relevant dispute and documentation demonstrating that the disputed funds were being held intact in her firm's escrow account.  Respondent failed to respond.  The AGC again requested the information and documentation and directed respondent to respond by August 1, 2025.  She provided a brief response on August 21, 2025, but did not submit any of the requested documentation regarding the escrow account.  The AGC requested additional information regarding the underlying dispute and the documentation concerning the escrow account by September 15, 2025.  She did not provide the additional information and documentation but rather requested multiple extensions of time to respond, which were granted.  Respondent was given until November 7, 2025 to respond but she failed to do so.

On January 21, 2025, the AGC received another complaint against respondent from a different complainant and directed respondent to submit an answer to the complaint within 20 days.  Respondent did not submit an answer and on February 19, 2025, the AGC made a second request for a response.  Respondent eventually submitted an answer on April 22, 2025, but then failed to provide information in response to the AGC's repeated requests on August 8, 2025, September 4, 2025, and September 16, 2025.  Instead, beginning on September 16, respondent requested several extensions of time, which were granted, ultimately providing her until November 7, 2025.  However, she did not provide the requested information.

On July 4, 2025, the AGC received a complaint from a third complainant.  The AGC, consistent with the prior pending complaints, emailed respondent at her Office of Court Administration (OCA) email address on August 11, 2025, instructing her to submit an answer within 20 days.  Respondent did not submit an answer.  The AGC sent a second request to respondent on October 9, 2025, directing her to submit a written answer within 10 days.  On October 17, 2025, respondent requested an extension of time to respond to October 27, 2025.  Although the AGC granted her request, respondent failed to submit an answer.

On October 2, 2025, the AGC received a complaint from a fourth complainant.  The AGC emailed respondent at her OCA email address and directed her to provide an answer to the complaint.  The AGC sent a second request to respondent on January 8, 2026, after respondent failed yet again to submit a timely answer.

The AGC obtained a judicial subpoena compelling respondent's attendance at a deposition on January 7, 2026, after respondent failed to provide the requested information relating to the first two complaints.  After several failed attempts at service, the AGC received an email from respondent wherein respondent indicated that she moved and did not receive the subpoena.  Respondent requested an adjournment of her deposition but did not consent to service of the subpoena via email or provide the outstanding information as directed.  Respondent also did not provide a current address.  As a result, the AGC was unable to effectuate timely service.

The AGC obtained a second judicial subpoena as well as permission from the Court to serve respondent by substitute service.  The subpoena was served via email in compliance with the Court's order on February 27, 2026.  Respondent did not reply.  The AGC reminded respondent that the subpoena ordered her to appear on March 23, 2026, at 10:00 am for her deposition, and warned her that under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a) and this Court's precedent, she could be suspended for failure to cooperate with the AGC's investigation.  Yet respondent did not appear for the deposition.

On March 26, 2026, the AGC emailed and mailed respondent a letter notifying her that she was in default on all four matters after failing to appear for her deposition and failing to provide information and documents in response to the AGC's inquiries.  Respondent was directed to appear and produce the outstanding information in accordance with the judicial subpoena on April 3, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.

Respondent was again reminded of the consequences for failing to comply, but she did not appear on April 3rd for her deposition.

The AGC now seeks an order, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (a)(1) and (3), immediately suspending respondent from the practice law and until further order of this Court, based upon respondent's failure to appear and to comply with the AGC's investigative demands.  Respondent has not submitted a response to the AGC's motion.

We find that the AGC has met its burden with sufficient evidence demonstrating respondent's pattern of non-cooperation, warranting her immediate suspension pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3).  The record shows that respondent had actual notice of the AGC's investigation, yet she failed to appear for a deposition as directed by the AGC, failed to comply with a judicial subpoena compelling her to appear and produce records, and repeatedly failed to comply with the AGC's lawful investigative demands for additional documents and information.  She should therefore be immediately suspended pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(3) (see Matter of Patouris, 238 A.D.3d 10, 231 N.Y.S.3d 45 [1st Dept 2026];  Matter of Biniakewitz, 246 A.D.3d 126, 244 N.Y.S.3d 84 [1st Dept 2025];  Matter of Dunne, 243 A.D.3d 79, 239 N.Y.S.3d 20 [1st Dept 2025];  Matter of Tessler, 215 A.D.3d 61, 186 N.Y.S.3d 642 [1st Dept 2023] ).

Accordingly, the AGC's motion should be granted, and respondent suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court.

All concur.

Wherefore, it is Ordered that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department for interim suspension, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(1) and (3), is granted, and respondent, Jordan Jessica Tapia, is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York effective immediately, and until further order of this Court;  and

It is further Ordered that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension, respondent, Jordan Jessica Tapia, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law;  and

It is further Ordered that, during the period of suspension, respondent, Jordan Jessica Tapia, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15), which are made part hereof;  and

It is further Ordered that, within 20 days of the date of service of this order, respondent Jordan Jessica Tapia, may submit a request, in writing, to this Court for a post-suspension hearing (see 22 NYCRR 1240.9[c] );  and

It is further Ordered that if respondent, Jordan Jessica Tapia, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith.

Per Curiam