IN RE: SUSAN ENGONWEI TINGWEI (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION

(Attorney Registration No. 5586110)

Calendar Date:  August 17, 2026

Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Alison M. Coan of counsel), for Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in New York in 2018 and was later admitted to the practice of law in Maryland in January 2020.  In June 2020, respondent was charged with health care fraud and other related crimes after a federal investigation identified that she had submitted false timesheets in connection with her work as a personal care aide while enrolled in a Masters of Law program in 2016–2017.  In October 2021, respondent pleaded guilty to one count of the federal felony of health care fraud (18 USC § 1347) before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.  In doing so, respondent pleaded guilty to a criminal information which charged that, during the relevant period, she used her National Provider Identifier to submit fraudulent timesheets to multiple home health agencies for home health aide services that she did not provide to Medicaid beneficiaries in the District of Columbia and knowingly caused the agencies to submit fraudulent timesheets to Medicaid for payment in violation of federal law.  Respondent was thereafter sentenced in July 2022 to 10 months of incarceration, to be followed by 24 months of supervised release, and the imposition of a $131,656.12 judgment, among other penalties.  Respondent and the Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission later jointly moved to disbar respondent based on her federal conviction and her violation of various Rules of Professional Conduct (see Maryland Rules of Prof Conduct rule 8.4[a], [b], [c], [d] ), and the Supreme Court of Maryland subsequently disbarred respondent in June 2025.

By order to show cause, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (hereinafter AGC) seeks to impose a measure of discipline upon respondent as a consequence of her federal felony conviction (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.12;  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12), or in the alternative, due to her established misconduct and resulting disbarment in Maryland (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13;  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.13).  Respondent was heard in opposition, and pursuant to party requests, AGC was heard in reply, and respondent was heard in surreply.

AGC argues that respondent's guilty plea to and conviction of health care fraud (18 USC § 1347) constitutes a serious crime in New York (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.12[b][2];  Rules of App.Div., 3d Dept [22 NYCRR] § 806.12).  As respondent's conviction was rendered final on July 14, 2022 – the date she was sentenced – AGC further contends that the matter is ripe for final judgment pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4) (see Judiciary Law § 90[4][g] ).  While respondent makes certain arguments concerning her plea to a federal felony, she does not dispute that she was convicted of a federal felony and largely seeks to provide information that can be construed as arguments in mitigation and as to the appropriate sanction to be imposed.  As we have previously concluded (see e.g. Matter of Gillman, 237 AD3d 1309, 1312 [3d Dept 2025] ), a plain reading of 18 USC § 1347 clearly meets the definition of a serious crime in New York, as the aforementioned criminal offense does not constitute a felony in New York and contains a necessary element of misrepresentation or fraud (see Judiciary Law § 90[4][d] ).  We similarly conclude that respondent's conviction has been rendered final following her October 2021 plea, as the record reveals that, in July 2022, she was sentenced in accordance with such plea.  As respondent's judgment of conviction has been rendered final (see Matter of Delany, 87 N.Y.2d 508, 513 [1996];  see also Judiciary Law § 90[4][g] ), we may dispense with an interim suspension, and proceed to consideration of the appropriate final disciplinary sanction for respondent's conviction.

We are empowered to issue a sanction to protect the public, maintain the honor and integrity of the profession, or deter others from committing similar misconduct (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8[b][2] ).  Chiefly, AGC argues that respondent engaged in serious criminal conduct, a necessary element of which includes intentional interference with the administration of justice, false swearing, fraud or misrepresentation, and that such intentional conduct adversely reflects on her fitness to practice, thereby warranting her disbarment (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standards 5.11, 7.1).  Among other arguments, AGC also cites in aggravation respondent's failure to supply timely notice of her conviction (see Judiciary Law 90 § [4][c];  Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.12[a] ), her temporary suspension and ultimate disbarment in Maryland and her temporary suspension by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, barring her from practicing before immigration courts (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.13[d] ).

In mitigation, respondent contends that her misconduct did not arise in her capacity as an attorney and did not include a complex scheme, making it a “fundamentally different kind of wrongdoing” than other comparative cases (see e.g. Matter of Gillman, 237 AD3d at 1312).  In her view, as she was not an attorney at the time of her criminal conduct, no client, tribunal or member of the public was exposed to risk, and she breached no fiduciary duty, as “she held none to breach.” ¹  Among other factors, respondent also cites the various penalties already levied against her – such as her incarceration and subsequent release, her compliance with a significant restitution judgment, despite real financial hardships and her disbarment in Maryland – arguing that any further discipline would duplicate the punitive effect that has already been achieved and likely preclude reinstatement opportunities in Maryland (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32[d], [k] ).  Additionally, respondent cites her positive reputation (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32[g] ) through various character references, and likewise notes that her failure to provide notice of her discipline and conviction was not borne out of concealment, but rather her failure to recognize the applicable notice requirements.

While respondent has presented a bevy of arguments as to mitigation and seeks to provide context as to her criminal conduct, her presentation tends to have the opposite effect, largely serving to aggravate her conduct (see Matter of Hamling, 222 AD3d 1322, 1324 [3d Dept 2023] ).  Significantly, respondent argues that, as her criminal conduct occurred prior to her admission both in New York and Maryland and did not involve the practice of law, it is somehow less significant than other comparative cases, wherein an attorney utilized his or her law license to engage in fraud (see e.g. Matter of Gillman, 237 AD3d at 1312–1313).  Regardless of whether the criminal conduct occurred pre- or post-admission, involved the practice of law or took place outside of New York, respondent's conviction of a serious crime nonetheless raises grave concerns about her character and fitness and her ability to practice law without posing a threat to the public, specifically in being able to maintain accurate records as to her client matters and escrow accounts, and such concerns are amplified by the reality that respondent admittedly engaged in this criminal conduct while pursuing her legal education.  Accordingly, given the totality of the circumstances, we suspend respondent for three years and in so doing, we further require that any future application by respondent for her reinstatement in this state shall include proof that she has been reinstated in Maryland (see Matter of Hamling, 222 AD3d at 1325).²

Clark, J.P., Reynolds Fitzgerald, Fisher, Corcoran and Ryba, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the motion of the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the findings set forth in this decision;  and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a three-year term, effective immediately;  and it is further

ORDERED that 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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Respondent also notes that she has filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis collaterally attacking her federal conviction on multiple grounds, including that the timesheets were prepopulated by the agency and that she had a consensual flexible work arrangement.  Given that respondent does not seek a stay or other such relief on the grounds of this petition, we consider the petition only in the context of mitigation and sanction to be imposed.

2.   Given our conclusions, AGC's alternative request for the imposition of discipline pursuant to Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.13 has been rendered academic.

Per Curiam.