On Thursday, March 5, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline against attorney Timothy Dunphy, resulting in his public censure. The decision stems from disciplinary actions taken against Dunphy in Connecticut, where he was reprimanded by the Connecticut Superior Court for failing to cooperate with a random audit of his attorney escrow account.
Dunphy, who was admitted to the New York bar on December 17, 2001, by the First Judicial Department, had already been suspended from practicing law in New York since November 17, 2022, due to his failure to file attorney registration statements and pay required biennial fees.
The Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee (CSGC) initiated the audit of Dunphy’s Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) in May 2023. Despite multiple attempts to notify him, Dunphy failed to complete a required questionnaire or comply with the audit. The CSGC’s efforts included certified mail and email correspondence, as well as telephone contact, but Dunphy did not respond.
The Connecticut Superior Court found Dunphy in violation of Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically regarding IOLTA accounts and cooperation with disciplinary authorities. Although a hearing was scheduled, Dunphy did not appear, but he later stipulated to the violations in a settlement with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel.
In New York, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) argued that Dunphy’s misconduct in Connecticut also constituted misconduct in New York, citing his failure to cooperate with the CSGC’s audit and his seven-year failure to register in Connecticut. The AGC maintained that a public censure was the appropriate reciprocal discipline, aligning with the reprimand issued in Connecticut.
Dunphy raised defenses, arguing that his misconduct in Connecticut would not constitute misconduct in New York, citing family health crises as a mitigating factor. However, the New York Court rejected these arguments, finding that Dunphy had been given ample notice and opportunity to defend himself in the Connecticut proceedings. The court also noted that Dunphy’s stipulated admissions fully supported his discipline.
The court concluded that reciprocal discipline was warranted, as Dunphy’s actions violated New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, including those related to maintaining required bookkeeping records and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court deferred to the sanction imposed by Connecticut, citing the state’s primary interest in fashioning sanctions for misconduct. Dunphy’s motion was denied.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
