IN RE: Sara O'CONNOR Kenney (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2007 and previously listed a business address in the City of Albany with the Office of Court Administration.  By September 2018 order, we struck respondent's name from the roll of attorneys nunc pro tunc to the date of her conviction based upon her May 2018 guilty plea to, among other crimes, aggravated driving while intoxicated, a class E felony (164 A.D.3d 1519, 80 N.Y.S.3d 655 [3d Dept 2018];  see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1192 [2–a] [b];  1193 [1] [c] [i] [B] ), and she was sentenced to a five-year term of felony probation.  Shortly after respondent's disbarment, respondent was arrested for driving while ability impaired (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[4] ), and after it was determined that she had violated the terms of her probation, she was sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration.  Respondent has now moved for her reinstatement for the first time, which motion the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) opposed by affirmation of counsel.  Upon our initial review, we referred the matter to a Character and Fitness subcommittee for hearing and report.  The subcommittee's report recommended that respondent's application for reinstatement be granted, subject to certain conditions.  While the parties were permitted to submit comments on the report, neither party availed themselves of that opportunity;  thus, the matter is now ripe for our final disposition.

Substantively,¹ all attorneys seeking reinstatement from disbarment must satisfy, by clear and convincing evidence, a three-part test in order to establish his or her entitlement to relief (see Matter of Matthews, 187 A.D.3d 1482, 1483, 133 N.Y.S.3d 325 [3d Dept 2020];  Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [a] ).  First, the attorney must exhibit that he or she has complied with the order of disbarment and all the applicable Court rules (see Matter of Canale, 162 A.D.3d 1455, 1456, 79 N.Y.S.3d 394 [3d Dept 2018] ).  Second, the attorney must demonstrate that he or she possesses the requisite character and fitness to practice law (see Matter of Krouner, 173 A.D.3d 1428, 1429, 102 N.Y.S.3d 791 [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 (see Matter of Sullivan, 153 A.D.3d 1484, 1484, 59 N.Y.S.3d 731 [3d Dept 2017] ).

Initially, a respondent satisfies the first prong of the analysis with proof that he or she has not practiced law in New York during the term of his or her disbarment and has complied with the Court's rules regarding disbarred attorneys (see Matter of Kotsogiannis, 230 A.D.3d 1425, 1427, 218 N.Y.S.3d 490 [3d Dept 2024];  see also Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15).  Respondent's reinstatement materials, her testimony before the subcommittee and the subcommittee report itself reveal that respondent has been gainfully employed in a nonlegal capacity with her longtime employer, the New York State Comptroller's Office.²  Therefore, we find that respondent has satisfied the first prong of Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.16(a) (see Matter of Kotsogiannis, 230 A.D.3d at 1426–1427, 218 N.Y.S.3d 490).

In assessing whether an attorney has satisfied his or her burden concerning the second and third factors, the Court considers both the conduct that led to the attorney's disbarment and his or her conduct following the order of disbarment (see Matter of Shmulsky, 219 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 194 N.Y.S.3d 343 [3d Dept 2023] ).  Moreover, he or she “must provide 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 Becker, 202 A.D.3d 1430, 1431, 162 N.Y.S.3d 584 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ).

With respect to respondent's character and fitness, the testimony of respondent and her character witnesses, as well as the subcommittee report, demonstrated that respondent understands the seriousness of her underlying misconduct, takes ownership of that misconduct and has taken steps to ensure that her mental health issues and substance abuse issues are under control and being monitored.  Although respondent provided the necessary context for her misconduct – particularly, her child's medical diagnosis, her marital issues and her mental health issues – she did not seek to minimize her conduct.  Instead, she recognizes and is thankful that her conduct did not seriously injure or kill someone else.  To that end, respondent detailed the steps she has taken to maintain a sober lifestyle and focus on her mental health, including participating in inpatient and outpatient treatment programs, availing herself of the programs available to her in prison, consistently attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, engaging in individual therapy and family therapy and becoming more involved with the Catholic Church.  The subcommittee concluded that respondent's testimony was credible and that the testimony of her witnesses corroborated respondent's account of her efforts and lifestyle choices.

As to the public interest in respondent's reinstatement, respondent has provided a clear pathway for her reentry to practice in this state – namely, with the Comptroller's Office in a legal capacity.  She has also expressed her willingness to mentor other attorneys who are struggling or in need of help, as well as her desire to provide pro bono legal services.  As noted in the subcommittee report, respondent has already demonstrated through her efforts as a sponsor with Alcoholics Anonymous that she is committed to helping others in similar situations as herself.  Moreover, her sober lifestyle and large support network provides the necessary assurances that the public would inure no detriment by her return to practice.  Accordingly, we conclude that respondent has sufficiently established the requisite character and fitness to resume the practice of law in this state, as well as the public's interest in her reinstatement (see Matter of Cammarano, 240 A.D.3d 1155, 1157–1158, 239 N.Y.S.3d 661 [3d Dept 2025];  Matter of Castro, 200 A.D.3d 1387, 1389–1391, 157 N.Y.S.3d 648 [3d Dept 2021] ).  Notwithstanding this conclusion, and in specific consideration of respondent's prolonged absence from the practice of law (see generally Matter of Crockett, 237 A.D.3d 1467, 1470–1471, 232 N.Y.S.3d 682 [3d Dept 2025] ), we impose certain conditions on her return to the practice of law as recommended by the subcommittee.  Specifically, we direct respondent to refrain from engaging in the solo practice of law, and to associate herself with and be supervised by an attorney of this state with at least five years of experience for a period of one year following this Court's order (see Matter of Castro, 200 A.D.3d at 1391–1392, 157 N.Y.S.3d 648;  Matter of Krouner, 173 A.D.3d at 1430, 102 N.Y.S.3d 791).  Respondent may move to terminate the foregoing condition after August 20, 2027.

ORDERED that respondent's motion for reinstatement 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;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent's reinstatement to the practice of law shall be subject to the conditions set forth in this decision.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Procedurally, we find that respondent has satisfied her obligations, considering that she has submitted a sworn affidavit in the form of Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) part 1240, appendix C, along with proof that she has successfully passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination within the year prior to making her application for reinstatement (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16 [b] ).

2.   Although respondent failed to file the required affidavit of compliance within 45 days of her disbarment (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15 [f] ), she appended such an affidavit to her reinstatement application.

Per Curiam.

Garry, P.J., Aarons, Pritzker, Fisher and McShan, JJ., concur.