IN RE: Lora Erin COMO (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 2009 and presently resides in Saratoga County.¹  In March 2026, respondent was convicted following her guilty plea of the crime of driving while ability impaired in Schenectady County Court, and she has since moved to vacate that conviction.  Respondent has also filed a complaint of professional misconduct against the prosecutor in that case, wherein she appended her memorandum in support of her CPL article 440 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction.  Accordingly, respondent inadvertently disclosed to the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) that she had been convicted of a crime.  AGC served respondent a Notice of Receipt of Self–Report, which included a request for additional information related to the circumstances of her arrest and conviction.  Respondent requested that AGC suspend its investigation, which request was denied.  After being granted an extension of time to respond to AGC's notice, respondent again requested that AGC suspend its investigation pending the resolution of the CPL article 440 motion.  After AGC denied her subsequent request, respondent explicitly indicated that she would not cooperate with AGC's investigation.  AGC now moves for respondent's interim suspension (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[a][3];  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.9).  Respondent has submitted correspondence in response to the motion.

“A respondent may be suspended from practice on an interim basis during the pendency of an investigation or proceeding ․ upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest” (Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[a] ).  In this vein, “[a] respondent's demonstrated failure to cooperate and comply with AGC's lawful demands not only constitutes professional misconduct immediately threatening the public interest, it also clearly jeopardizes the effectiveness of the attorney disciplinary system” (Matter of Gearing, 228 A.D.3d 1055, 1056, 212 N.Y.S.3d 755 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted] ).  To that end, “the mere failure to comply with a lawful demand of AGC during its investigation is sufficient to form the basis for a suspension” (Matter of Brown, 232 A.D.3d 981, 982, 220 N.Y.S.3d 504 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted];  see Matter of Krinsky, 195 A.D.3d 1149, 1150–1151, 147 N.Y.S.3d 271 [3d Dept 2021] ).

In her response to AGC's motion, respondent does not dispute that she failed to comply with AGC's demands.  However, merely responding to the motion, on its own, is insufficient to defeat a motion seeking an attorney's suspension for noncompliance;  instead, “the attorney must rebut the allegations that he [or she] has failed to comply” (Matter of Krinsky, 195 A.D.3d at 1151, 147 N.Y.S.3d 271;  see Matter of Siegel, 193 A.D.3d 1177, 1177–1178, 143 N.Y.S.3d 756 [3d Dept 2021];  Matter of Burney, 183 A.D.3d 1005, 1006–1007, 121 N.Y.S.3d 915 [3d Dept 2020];  Matter of Tan, 164 A.D.3d 1537, 1538, 82 N.Y.S.3d 667 [3d Dept 2018] ).  Instead of contesting these facts, respondent offers an explanation for her failure.  Further, the record readily establishes that respondent willfully and intentionally refused to comply with the lawful demands of AGC (see Matter of Caruso, 205 A.D.3d 1264, 1265, 167 N.Y.S.3d 657 [3d Dept 2022];  Matter of Hessberg, 166 A.D.3d 1283, 1283–1284, 86 N.Y.S.3d 793 [3d Dept 2018];  see also Matter of Fischer, 239 A.D.3d 1229, 1231–1232, 236 N.Y.S.3d 778 [3d Dept 2025] ).  Although respondent has minimally complied with AGC's request through her submission to this Court, this minimal compliance does not warrant a denial of the motion (see Matter of Burney, 183 A.D.3d at 1006–1007, 121 N.Y.S.3d 915;  see also Matter of Meltzer, 189 A.D.3d 80, 82, 131 N.Y.S.3d 140 [2020] ).  In fact, the information provided to this Court appears largely duplicative to the information already provided to AGC through its receipt of respondent's memorandum in support of her CPL article 440 motion.

Accordingly, having determined that AGC has established that respondent's failure to respond to the notice and her failure to comply with its lawful requests threaten the public interest, we grant the motion and suspend respondent from the practice of law indefinitely during the pendency of its investigation (see Matter of Brown, 232 A.D.3d at 983, 220 N.Y.S.3d 504;  Matter of Nestler, 193 A.D.3d 1320, 1321–1322, 145 N.Y.S.3d 684 [3d Dept 2021] ).  Further, we remind respondent that she has an affirmative obligation to respond or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings before AGC within six months of this order, and that a failure to do so may result in her disbarment without further notice (see Matter of Figueroa, 241 A.D.3d 1670, 1672, 242 N.Y.S.3d 124 [3d Dept 2025];  see Matter of Fischer, 239 A.D.3d at 1232, 236 N.Y.S.3d 778).

ORDERED that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court (see generally Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.16); and it is further

ORDERED that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form in the State of New York, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto, or to hold herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law in this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys and shall duly certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.15); and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall, within 30 days of the date of this decision, surrender to the Office of Court Administration any Attorney Secure Pass issued to her; and it is further

ORDERED that, within 20 days from the date of this decision, respondent may submit a request, in writing, to this Court for a postsuspension hearing (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[c]); and it is further

ORDERED that respondent's failure to respond to or appear for further investigatory or disciplinary proceedings within six months from the date of this decision may result in her disbarment by the Court without further notice (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.9[b]).

FOOTNOTES

1.   Respondent has self-certified as retired in her 2025–2026 biennial registration statement.

Per Curiam.

Garry, P.J., Ceresia, McShan, Mackey and Ryba, JJ., concur.