On Tuesday, October 7, 2025, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline against attorney Brian M. Dratch, resulting in a public censure. The disciplinary action stems from misconduct proceedings initiated in New Jersey, where Dratch was also admitted to practice law.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Brian M. Dratch,” with case number 2025-04797.
The New Jersey Supreme Court had previously issued a public reprimand to Dratch on December 11, 2024. This reprimand was based on Dratch’s handling of a personal injury lawsuit filed on behalf of a client, P.B., against the State of New Jersey. The case centered on the alleged inadequate medical treatment P.B. received while incarcerated.
According to court documents, Dratch failed to adequately represent his client in several key aspects of the case. These failures included not informing P.B. about filing the claim, neglecting to respond to P.B.’s inquiries for updates, and not formally withdrawing as counsel despite expressing uncertainty about the case’s viability. He also failed to comply with the State’s requests for medical records and did not depose P.B.’s treating physician.
The New Jersey Court of Claims ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the State on March 9, 2020, dismissing P.B.’s claim. Dratch did not notify P.B. of this dismissal until April 15, 2020, six days after the appeal deadline had passed. While informing P.B. that he saw no basis for appeal, Dratch incorrectly advised him of a 30-day appeal window that had already expired.
Further complicating matters, P.B. requested a status update and a copy of his file in December 2021, which Dratch did not fulfill. Dratch later informed P.B. that the case was dismissed due to the lack of an expert witness, but by then, the appeal period had been over for approximately 18 months.
Dratch admitted to violating several rules of professional conduct in New Jersey, including those related to competent representation, client communication, and withdrawal from representation. He also stipulated that he failed to cooperate with the New Jersey disciplinary investigation.
The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) sought reciprocal discipline in New York, arguing that Dratch’s misconduct in New Jersey also constituted misconduct under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The court agreed, finding that Dratch violated rules pertaining to competent representation, client communication, and the handling of client matters upon termination of representation. The court noted that Dratch did not appear in the New York proceeding.
The court determined that public censure was the appropriate sanction, aligning with precedents in similar cases and considering the seriousness of the misconduct alongside Dratch’s previously unblemished record. The court also factored in Dratch’s failure to report the New Jersey discipline to the New York authorities.
According to Avvo, Mr. Dratch is a criminal defense lawyer in New York, NY. He acquired his law license in New York in 2001.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
