IN RE: Douglas Todd HARRIS (2026)

By order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated January 10, 2025 (hereinafter the New Jersey order), the respondent was disbarred and his name was stricken from the roll of attorneys based upon his consent to disbarment.  The order was predicated on a matter pending against the respondent under Docket No. XIV–2023–0389E and on the respondent's “Disbarment by Consent from the Bar of the State of New Jersey,” sworn to by the respondent on January 3, 2025.  In the consent, the respondent stated that he consulted with counsel prior to completing the form and that his consent to disbarment was freely and voluntarily made.  The respondent further stated that he was aware of the allegations against him of “knowing[ly] misappropriat[ing] ․ client funds[,] ․ negligently misappropriat[ing] client funds, fail[ing] to safeguard client funds, fail[ing] to promptly deliver funds to a client, fail[ing] to maintain required financial records, and engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”  The respondent acknowledged that the allegations were true and that if he went to a hearing on the matter, he could not successfully defend himself against the allegations.

The New York Proceeding

By order to show cause dated December 19, 2025, this Court directed the respondent to show cause why an order should not be made and entered pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13 imposing discipline upon him for the misconduct underlying the discipline imposed by the New Jersey order by filing an affidavit in accordance with 22 NYCRR 1240.13(b) with the Clerk of this Court, with proof of service upon the Grievance Committee on or before February 2, 2026.  Although a copy of this Court's order to show cause was served upon the respondent by certified and electronic mail, the respondent failed to respond.

Based on the findings of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, we find that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is warranted.  The sanction imposed in New York for an attorney who submits a resignation during the pendency of a grievance investigation is disbarment, and, thus, effective immediately, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-At-Law.

ORDERED that pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.13, the respondent, Douglas Todd Harris, admitted as Douglas T. Harris, is disbarred, effective immediately, and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-Law;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Douglas Todd Harris, admitted as Douglas T. Harris, shall 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, effective immediately, the respondent, Douglas Todd Harris, admitted as Douglas T. Harris, 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 himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-At-Law;  and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Douglas Todd Harris, admitted as Douglas T. Harris, 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 his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).

PER CURIAM.

LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS, and QUIRK, JJ., concur.LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS and QUIRK, JJ., concur.