Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Anna LUSHCHINSKY, also known as Anna Lushchinskaya, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; v. Anna Lushchinsky, also known as Anna Lushchinskaya, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4256608)
Written with the help of AI | Legally Reviewed by Balrina Ahluwalia, Esq. | Last updated May 12, 2025
In In Re: Anna Lushchinsky, the Second Judicial Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York addressed disciplinary charges against an attorney.
The 2022 case centered around Anna Lushchinsky, also known as Anna Lushchinskaya. Lushchinsky is an attorney in New York. She was arrested twice in 2018 for separate New York City subway incidents.
First, she sprayed two subway passengers with a chemical that burned their eyes and faces. Then she struck another passenger with her legs and umbrella. Her actions were caught on video.
Lushchinsky was indicted on several criminal charges. She ultimately pled guilty to misdemeanor menacing. The court convicted her.
It sentenced Lushchinsky to:
Later, the Grievance Committee for three judicial districts brought disciplinary charges against Lushchinsky. This committee is part of New York’s court system. It’s responsible for maintaining the ethical standards of the legal profession in the state.
At the prehearing conference, Lushchinsky interrupted opposing counsel and denied her conviction. She didn’t show up to the hearing. A court-appointed special referee reviewed the case. They concluded that Lushchinsky
The court agreed with the special referee's findings. It found that Lushchinsky's actions constituted professional misconduct that reflected adversely on her fitness as a lawyer. The court noted that her behavior violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
It suspended Lushchinsky from practicing law for three years, starting September 16, 2022. During this period, she must comply with legal education requirements and refrain from legal practice or offering legal advice. If she meets specific conditions, she may apply for reinstatement after March 16, 2025.
The court took this action because of the seriousness of Lushchinsky's crimes, her lack of remorse, and her disrespectful behavior during the disciplinary process.
Thank you for your feedback about this summary!
OPINION & ORDER
After a prehearing conference on July 8, 2021, and a hearing on September 22, 2021, the Special Referee filed a report dated December 2, 2021, setting forth his findings and concluding that the respondent had not demonstrated why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made. The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and proper. The respondent has not submitted any papers in response or sought additional time in which to do so.
The Criminal Conviction
On June 28, 2018, the respondent was arrested and charged with committing assault in the third degree against two passengers on a New York City subway car by spraying them with a chemical liquid, causing irritation and burning to their eyes and faces, in violation of Penal Law § 120.00, a class A misdemeanor.
On December 11, 2018, the respondent was arrested and charged with assault in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 120.05(1), a class D felony. The incident underlying this charge, which occurred on a crowded New York City subway car, was captured on video. Initially, the respondent repeatedly cursed at the victim. The respondent then methodically took off her sunglasses, placed them in her pocketbook, tied her hair back, and took her keys and umbrella from her pocketbook. The respondent used her legs and umbrella to strike the victim. Although a bystander tried to block the respondent, the respondent continued striking the victim.
On January 30, 2019, the respondent was indicted on 13 counts of criminal conduct for the incidents occurring on June 28, 2018, and December 11, 2018: assault in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 120.05(2); assault in the third degree (two counts), in violation of Penal Law § 120.00(1); menacing in the second degree (two counts), in violation of Penal Law § 120.14(1); menacing in the third degree (two counts), in violation of Penal Law § 120.15; harassment in the second degree (three counts), in violation of Penal Law § 240.26(1); attempted assault in the third degree (two counts), in violation of Penal Law §§ 110.00 and 120.00(1); and attempted assault in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law §§ 110.00 and 120.05(2).
On November 20, 2019, in the Supreme Court, Kings County, the respondent was convicted, upon a plea of guilty, of menacing in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 120.14(1), a class A misdemeanor, in full satisfaction of the indictment. On January 22, 2020, the respondent was sentenced to two years of probation, 15 days of community service, and a one-day anger management program, and was directed to pay a $175 surcharge, a $50 DNA fee, and a $25 crime victims assessment fee. A six-year final order of protection was also issued.
The Special Referee's Report
The Special Referee found that the respondent was “totally indifferent and disrespectful” at the prehearing conference, which was held virtually on July 8, 2021. During the prehearing conference, the respondent interrupted the Grievance Committee's counsel several times, stating that she was at a hotel and needed to check out. She denied that she was convicted of a crime, repeatedly stated, “Nobody cares,” and told the Grievance Committee's counsel to cut his remarks short. The respondent did not appear at the hearing.
In his report, the Special Referee found that the respondent “did not acknowledge her conduct, show an ounce of remorse and vehemently denied any wrongdoing and her conviction.” Despite her denial that she had been convicted of a crime, a certificate of conviction was admitted into evidence, and it was “conclusive evidence of the respondent's guilt of that crime in any disciplinary proceeding instituted against the respondent based on the conviction” (22 NYCRR 1240.12[d]).
The Special Referee further noted that the respondent did not inform this Court and the Grievance Committee of her criminal conviction as required under Judiciary Law § 90(4)(c) and 22 NYCRR 1240.12(a).
The Special Referee concluded that the respondent did not demonstrate why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made.
Findings and Conclusion
We find that the Special Referee properly concluded that the respondent failed to meet her burden of establishing why this Court should not issue a final order of public discipline. Thus, the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted.
In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to impose, we have considered that at the prehearing conference, the respondent was indifferent, lacked decorum, and showed no remorse or acceptance of responsibility. The Court has also considered, inter alia, the nature of the criminal conduct in this matter and the respondent's failure to attend the hearing and failure to submit any mitigating evidence. Notwithstanding the respondent's lack of a disciplinary history, we conclude that the respondent's conduct warrants her suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years.
ORDERED that the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Anna Lushchinsky, also known as Anna Lushchinskaya, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, commencing September 16, 2022, and continuing until further order of this Court. The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than March 16, 2025. In such application (see 22 NYCRR 1240.16), the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof that during the period of suspension she (1) refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) fully complied with this opinion and order and with the terms and provisions of the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15), (3) complied with the applicable continuing legal education requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.11(a), and (4) otherwise properly conducted herself; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Anna Lushchinsky, also known as Anna Lushchinskaya, shall promptly comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15); and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until further order of this Court, the respondent, Anna Lushchinsky, also known as Anna Lushchinskaya, shall desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as 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 if the respondent, Anna Lushchinsky, also known as Anna Lushchinskaya, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).
PER CURIAM.
LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2020–09525
Decided: August 17, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)