On Thursday, July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline against attorney Daniel Darrow Feldman, imposing a public censure.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Daniel Darrow Feldman,” with case number 2025-03277.

The decision follows disciplinary action taken by the Grievance Commission of Maine, where Feldman was reprimanded and placed on six-month probation for professional misconduct.

Feldman faced allegations stemming from his representation of a client, identified as W.B., in two Maine criminal court cases in February 2023. W.B., a non-U.S. citizen, requested to attend jury selection virtually while overseas. The court approved the request, but Feldman failed to provide W.B. with the necessary virtual meeting details. As a result, W.B. did not appear, leading to an arrest warrant issued by the court.

Feldman did not inform W.B. of the warrant, and on December 31, 2023, W.B. was arrested upon returning to the U.S. The arrest required W.B. to post bail, retrieve a towed vehicle, and address complications with his immigration status. On January 1, 2024, W.B. emailed Feldman seeking clarification about the warrant but received no response.

On June 20, 2024, the Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar filed formal disciplinary charges against Feldman. The parties reached a stipulated agreement, and on December 9, 2024, the Maine Grievance Commission issued a report finding Feldman in violation of Maine Rules of Professional Conduct related to competence, diligence, communication, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The commission imposed a reprimand and six-month probation.

The New York Attorney Grievance Committee sought reciprocal discipline under Judiciary Law and court rules, arguing that Feldman’s actions violated similar New York Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee cited Feldman’s clean disciplinary record, cooperation with the investigation, and efforts to secure a favorable outcome for W.B.’s immigration concerns as mitigating factors. Feldman did not respond to the motion.

The court found public censure appropriate, aligning with Maine’s discipline and prior New York cases, but declined to impose probation, as it is not provided for under applicable court rules.

According to the filing, Mr. Feldman acquired his law license in New York in 2000.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.