IN RE: Ravinder Singh BHALLA (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent, the former Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey and current Member of the New Jersey General Assembly, was admitted to practice by this Court in 2000 after previously being admitted in New Jersey in 1999.  In June 2019, we suspended respondent for three months based on his admitted misconduct in New Jersey, which included his admission that he had repeatedly underfunded a retirement account intended for the benefit of an associate attorney under his employ (173 AD3d 1432 [3d Dept 2019] ).  Later, in July 2020, we suspended respondent for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from his failure to comply with his attorney registration obligations beginning in 2016 (185 AD3d 1373, 1375 [3d Dept 2020] ).  Having now cured his biennial registration delinquency, respondent moves for his reinstatement, which application the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposes by affirmation of counsel.  Respondent has been heard in reply, and the parties have been heard at oral argument.

An attorney seeking reinstatement from a suspension is required to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that he or she has complied with the order of suspension and the Rules of the Court;  that he or she possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law;  and that it would be in the public interest to reinstate him or her to the practice of law (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a] ), as well as various procedural requirements, which may vary based on the term of suspension pursuant to the suspension order (compare Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] [1], [2], with Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [b] [1], [2] ), as well as the nature of the suspension (compare Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [a] [1], [2], with Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [c] [1], [2] ).

Preliminarily, we conclude that respondent has met his threshold procedural burden through his submission of a form affidavit consistent with Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, appendix D, which is applicable to both an attorney seeking reinstatement from a suspension of six months or less pursuant to the terms of the suspension order (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [b] [1], [2] ), as well as an attorney seeking reinstatement as a sole consequence of failing to comply with his or her biennial registration requirements (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [c] [1], [2] ).  Additionally, as an attorney suspended for an actual duration of more than one year, respondent has established that, within six months preceding his motion for reinstatement, he has successfully earned a minimum of eight continuing legal education credits, as our Rules require (see Rules of App Div, 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.16 [b] [5];  see also Rules of App Div, All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1500.2 [c], [d], [e], [g], [h] ).

Turning to the substantive requirements, we conclude that respondent has met the first prong of the three-part test for reinstatement, as the record demonstrates that he has refrained from the practice of law in New York pursuant to our orders of suspension, and that he is compliant with our Rules regarding suspended attorneys (see Matter of Kostogiannis, 230 AD3d 1425, 1427 [3d Dept 2024] ).  Additionally, we note that respondent's motion, in light of AGC's opposition, raised concerns as to both his character and fitness (see generally Matter of Brammer, 233 AD3d 1341, 1343–1344 [3d Dept 2024] ), as well as the public's interest in his reinstatement (see Matter of Del Boccio, 241 AD3d 1615, 1616 [3d Dept 2025] ).  However, upon review of the specific facts at bar – specifically, respondent's extensive history of public service in New Jersey both prior to and following his suspensions in this state, his remorse for his conduct and his efforts to cure his long-standing registration delinquency and seek reinstatement – we conclude that he possesses the requisite character and fitness to be reinstated to the practice of law (see Matter of Castro, 200 AD3d 1387, 1389–1390 [3d Dept 2021] ).  Relatedly, given respondent's expressed plans to utilize his New York law license, if reinstated, as well as his intentions to continue to serve his community in New Jersey, we conclude that his reinstatement would be a benefit to the public (see Matter of Hogan, 220 AD3d 998, 1001 [3d Dept 2023] ).  Given the foregoing, we grant respondent's motion and reinstate him to the practice of law in New York and, in doing so, we encourage respondent to utilize his experience and skill set in service to the public interest (see Rules of Chief Admr of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 118.1 [e] [15];  Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 6.1).

ORDERED that the motion for reinstatement by respondent is granted;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Per Curiam.

Garry, P.J., Clark, Aarons, McShan and Corcoran, JJ., concur.