.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

California Initiates Automatic Expungement of Attorney Disciplinary Records

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025

February 1, 2025

by Matthew Flanagan

In a first-of-its-kind move, the California State Bar endorsed a plan to expunge attorney discipline records—other than disbarment—after eight years. The practical effect of the move is that public discipline would no longer appear on the lawyer’s state bar website profile. 

The change is intended, in part, to lessen the impact of what was perceived as racial disparities in attorney discipline in California. A 2019 state bar-commissioned study had found that Black male attorneys in California—who currently make up just 1% of the state’s lawyers—were more than three times as likely to be placed on probation than white male attorneys.

Will other states follow? Many of the actions taken by the Attorney Grievance Committees in New York are not public. The Committees issue Letters of Advisement, which are not considered discipline, or Admonitions, which are considered discipline but are not public. The public forms of discipline—censure, suspension and disbarment—are only taken after formal proceedings are initiated in one of the four Appellate Divisions. There have been no studies in New York addressing racial disparities in the administration of public discipline against attorneys in New York, and with a recent rollback in DEI initiatives (AP has reported that McDonald’s is the latest company to eliminate diversity goals), it seems unlikely that there will be anytime soon. 

The California proposal was not universally supported. In fact, Reuters reported that 445 comments were received during the public comment phase and 74% of those comments opposed the change. “Non-attorney members of the public [were] most heavily against it,” according to Reuters.

Some may argue that the public is entitled to complete transparency when hiring an attorney. Others may argue that the measure does not address the root cause of the problem it purports to address. What are your thoughts? 


 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – February 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.