IN RE: Michael Louis ROTHENBERG (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2009, following his admission in Georgia in 2002, where he last maintained an office to practice law.  Respondent voluntarily resigned from the practice of law before the Supreme Court of Georgia following his federal conviction of the crime of wire fraud.  By April 2014 order of this Court, respondent was disbarred as a consequence of his adjudicated Georgia misconduct (116 A.D.3d 1334, 983 N.Y.S.2d 921 [3d Dept. 2014]).  Respondent applied for reinstatement by motion made returnable August 19, 2024.  The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposed the motion, in part, based upon the insufficiency thereof.  Respondent was heard in reply.

A disbarred attorney seeking reinstatement in New York must apply by form affidavit prescribed in Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240.  That attorney's application must include other documentary support (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[b];  see also Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15[f]), including proof of the successful passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (see Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468–a [Alimanova], 156 A.D.3d 1223, 1224, 67 N.Y.S.3d 672 [3d Dept. 2017]).  Upon this Court's initial review of respondent's application, respondent's application did not contain proof of his successful passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination in this state.  Accordingly, we referred that application to a subcommittee of the Committee on Character and Fitness for a hearing and report, with said hearing being conditioned upon respondent's submission of proof establishing his successful passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination by December 31, 2025;  otherwise, his application would be subject to denial (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16[a], [b];  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16[a][5]).

To date, respondent has not provided evidence that he has successfully passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, despite being given ample opportunity to do so.  Accordingly, respondent's application for reinstatement to the practice of law is deficient and must be denied for failing to comply with the mandates of the Rules of Professional Conduct § 1240.16(b) (see Matter of Conlon, 163 A.D.3d 1261, 1262, 77 N.Y.S.3d 325 [3d Dept. 2018];  Matter of Tendler, 145 A.D.3d 1314, 1314–1315, 42 N.Y.S.3d 695 [3d Dept. 2016]).  Our denial of respondent's motion for reinstatement is without prejudice to any future motion respondent elects to file with this Court that is in full compliance with the Rules of this Court (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16;  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16).

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement is denied.

Per Curiam.

Garry, P.J., Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur.