On Thursday, February 9, 2023, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Third Judicial Department ruled on the petition for reinstatement filed by New Jersey attorney Amy Esther Lefkowitz.

According to the Memorandum and Order on Motion, Lefkowitz was suspended from practice by a January 2014 order of the Court for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice arising from noncompliance with the attorney registration obligations beginning in 2006. Lefkowitz sought reinstatement and waiver of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) requirement after curing her registration delinquency in June 2018.

The Attorney Grievance Committee, in a correspondence dated September 30, 2022, opposed Leftkowitz’s petition because the proof of Lefkowit’z passage of MPRE in 2000 did not constitute proof of her successful completion of the MPRE

The court, on the other hand, stated that the respondent’s submissions demonstrate that she is current with her continuing legal education requirements in New Jersey, specifically in the area of”ethics and/or professional responsibility courses

The filing states:

“In addition, respondent avers that she currently serves as a volunteer on an ethics committee in New Jersey, wherein she investigates grievances, presents at ethics hearings, and earns additional CLE credits for her service on that committee. Under the facts and circumstances presented, including the fact that her suspension in New York rests solely on her failure to comply with NewYork’s registration requirement–a delinquency which she has now cured–respondent has provided sufficient assurances warranting a waiver of the MPRE.’

The filing continues:

‘Turning to respondent’s character and fitness, respondent has provided a certificate of good standing for New Jersey, thus resolving AGC’sobjection in this regard. Respondent further attests that she has not been subject to discipline in New Jersey or other disciplines in New York, outside of the instant suspension. She likewise has no history of litigation, unsatisfied judgments or bankruptcies, or overdue debts of significance or defaults, and has not been subject to any governmental investigations or criminal prosecutions.’

Accordingly, the Court, having found that Lefkowitz has established her compliance with both the Court’s rules and its suspension order, ruled in favor of Lefkowitz.

The disposition reads:

“ORDERED that respondent’s motion for reinstatement is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York. effective immediately.”

As of today, Ms. Amy Esther Lefkowitz practices in Fairlawn, New Jersey. She has been admitted to the New York bar, license no. 4230612, as well as to the New Jersey bar.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.