New York Appellate Court Publicly Censures Attorney John Stephen Lubenesky Over New Jersey Trust-Account Violations

On Tuesday, March 24, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department granted the Attorney Grievance Committee’s motion for reciprocal discipline against attorney John Stephen Lubenesky, resulting in his public censure. The decision, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.13, stems from disciplinary actions taken against Lubenesky in New Jersey.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of John Stephen Lubenesky,” with case number 2025-06542.

Lubenesky, who was admitted to the New York bar on March 27, 2001, by the First Judicial Department, faced scrutiny for misconduct in New Jersey, prompting the Attorney Grievance Committee to seek disciplinary measures in New York. Despite Lubenesky’s lack of appearance in the New York proceedings, the court found no applicable defenses against reciprocal discipline, noting he had notice of the allegations and participated in New Jersey’s disciplinary actions.

The New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) initially investigated Lubenesky after his bank reported a $1,544 overdraft in his attorney trust account in December 2022, caused by insufficient funds to cover a $120,000 check. A subsequent audit in April 2023 revealed record-keeping deficiencies in his escrow and business accounts. Lubenesky received extensions to rectify these issues but failed to provide the necessary information.

Consequently, the OAE filed a formal ethics complaint on December 5, 2023. Lubenesky admitted to multiple violations of New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, including improper account designations, failing to maintain proper financial records, and mishandling client funds. The New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) later found him in violation of these rules and recommended a reprimand. The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the DRB’s findings on January 28, 2025.

The New York court’s decision to publicly censure Lubenesky aligns with the principle of deferring to the original jurisdiction’s sanctions for misconduct. The court noted that Lubenesky’s actions in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court deemed public censure the appropriate sanction, commensurate with the discipline imposed in New Jersey and consistent with the court’s precedent.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.