On Thursday, July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department censured attorney Claude David Convisser, following a motion from the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) for the Third Judicial Department. Convisser, who was suspended from practice in September 2024 for failing to meet attorney registration requirements, faced scrutiny for previous disciplinary actions in other jurisdictions.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Claude David Convisser,” with case number PM-157-25.
Convisser’s suspension stemmed from conduct deemed prejudicial to the administration of justice, primarily due to non-compliance with registration obligations starting in 2020.
In February 2025, Convisser petitioned the court for reinstatement and sought permission to resign. During this process, he disclosed that in July 2010, the Supreme Court of New Mexico had suspended him for one year, with the suspension deferred, and publicly reprimanded him for misconduct. This misconduct included unauthorized legal practice and actions involving dishonesty and misrepresentation. Additionally, Convisser’s disclosure revealed that he faced similar disciplinary measures in other jurisdictions, including sanctions imposed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
The AGC highlighted that Convisser’s New Mexico discipline was linked to his solicitation of a benefactor’s sister to pursue claims against the estate of the benefactor, despite not being licensed to practice law in New Mexico at the time. Convisser, although licensed in Virginia, was inactive and unauthorized to practice law. He met with the estate’s personal representative, making threats of legal action and representing that he had secured claimants willing to sue.
Additionally, Convisser attempted to involve the New Mexico Attorney General by submitting an unsigned affidavit, misrepresenting the status of the document and the individual involved. This led to findings by a Disciplinary Board in New Mexico, which concluded that Convisser had engaged in unauthorized practice and dishonest conduct.
In the recent proceedings, the court acknowledged Convisser’s various defenses but found them insufficient to negate the findings of misconduct established in New Mexico. The court determined that its Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters allowed it to impose discipline based on the findings from other jurisdictions when proper legal standards were met.
The AGC cited Convisser’s failure to timely disclose his disciplinary history and the nature of his misrepresentation as aggravating factors. While Convisser pointed out mitigating circumstances, including the lack of client harm and a good character reputation, the court emphasized that the New Mexico sanction—a stayed suspension—was not permissible under New York’s disciplinary rules.
Ultimately, the court ruled to censure Convisser, reflecting the severity of his past misconduct and the obligation to uphold professional integrity in the legal field. This decision serves as a formal reprimand, reinforcing the importance of compliance with ethical standards among legal practitioners.
According to Avvo, Mr. Convisser is a lawyer in Fairfax, VA. He acquired his law license in New York in 2005.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
