Matter of Cruikshank

Matter of Cruikshank 2026 NY Slip Op 05840 October 8, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. In the Matter of Allan Baldwin Cruikshank Jr., an Attorney. Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Petitioner; Allan Baldwin Cruikshank Jr., Respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 2980969) Decided and Entered:October 8, 2026 PM-222-26 Calendar Date: September 15, 2026 Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Ceresia, Mcshan And Mackey, JJ. Monica A. Duffy, Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department, Albany (Cassidy V. Milam of counsel), for petitioner. Allan Baldwin Cruikshank Jr., Plattsburgh, respondent pro se. [*1] Per Curiam. Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1999 and currently practices as a principal at a small firm in the City of Plattsburgh, Clinton County. By petition of charges filed in March 2026, petitioner now alleges that, based on three client complaints, respondent neglected matrimonial and criminal matters, failed to keep clients informed about the status of their respective matters, failed to bill a matrimonial client as required; failed to comply with both petitioner's demands and court demands; and brought a claim that had no basis in the law in an employment matter. Respondent filed a verified answer, and the parties submitted a stipulation of joint facts and charges of professional misconduct, wherein the parties stipulate (1) there are no factual issues in dispute; (2) that the matter does not warrant the appointment of a referee; and (3) that respondent engaged in professional misconduct and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties were heard, both in written submissions and in oral argument before the Court, as to aggravation, mitigation and sanction to be imposed. This matter comes before us in a novel procedural posture, as neither party has moved for summary judgment (see e.g. Matter of Nwosu, 244 AD3d 1576 [3d Dept 2025]; Matter of Gamalski, 218 AD3d 992 [3d Dept 2023]), and the parties have not jointly moved for the imposition of a certain type of discipline, as provided for under our Rules (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [a] [5]). Nonetheless, respondent admits to various factual allegations, which largely mirror the petition of charges filed by petitioner, and likewise admits that he engaged in multiple violations to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Accordingly, we deem respondent guilty of violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct as set forth in the parties' stipulation (see Rules of Prof Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rules 1.1 [a]; 1.3 [a]; 1.4 [a] [1] [iii], [3], [4]; 3.1 [a]; 8.4 [c], [d]; Rules of App Div, All Depts [22 NYCRR] § 1400.3), and turn our attention to consideration of the sanction to be imposed. In presenting arguments on the issue of appropriate discipline for misconduct, the parties may cite any relevant factor, including aggravating and mitigating factors (see Rules for Atty Disciplinary Matters [22 NYCRR] § 1240.8 [b] [2]). To that end, respondent acknowledges that the clients underlying the three complaints deserved more diligent and competent representation, further expressing remorse and noting that he has accepted responsibility for his actions and endeavors to avoid future misconduct (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.32 [l]). Respondent likewise acknowledges that he struggles with caseload management and the stresses of work as an attorney, including maintaining contact with clients, who may change contact information without notice to respondent; and managing court appearances, all of which is compounded by a lack of legal [*2]resources in the northern part of the state. Notwithstanding this, respondent claims that he remains dedicated to his clients and meeting their needs, often speaking with clients outside of the traditional work hours and working evenings and weekends, further noting that he provides vital legal services to individuals in an area of the state lacking same. In aggravation, petitioner cites respondent's disciplinary history within the last six years, which includes two censures before this Court (246 AD3d 1215 [3d Dept 2026]; 230 AD3d 901 [3d Dept 2024]), private discipline and letters of caution issued by petitioner for similar conduct, and sanctions issued by various courts in Clinton County, all of which petitioner contends demonstrates a pattern of misconduct (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [a], [c]). While respondent contends that he takes petitioner's recommendations and inquiries seriously, petitioner notes that respondent received an admonition for, among other things, failing to cooperate with its investigations, and shortly thereafter, respondent again failed to cooperate with petitioner's investigations as to the instant complaints, thereby impeding its ability to fully investigate the complaints (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standard 9.22 [e]). Given respondent's stipulations to various facts and Rule violations, petitioner avers that respondent's failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing the clients caused harm and potential harm to his clients, including through maintaining a meritless action (see ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions standards 3.0 [c]; 4.4). In acknowledging respondent's remorse and promises to avoid future instances of misconduct, we likewise acknowledge that his written submissions had not offered concrete steps to address the issues brought to light by this proceeding. Of significant concern is respondent's efforts to reduce his caseload, which would be a reasonable step to take for an attorney admittedly struggling with caseload management and meeting the needs and demands of both clients and the courts. At oral argument, respondent provided some details on this point, noting that, in the past two years, he has sought to reduce his caseload and limit the number of cases he maintains at any given time. Accepting respondent's statements on this point, and acknowledging same in light of the timeline of the various instances of misconduct, we are assuaged that respondent is aware of the significance and impact of his misconduct; thus, we censure him. However, in doing so, we find that certain precautionary measures are needed to ensure that respondent remains cognizant of the number of cases he maintains at a given time. Accordingly, we direct that, on or before December 7, 2026 and, thereafter, on a semiannual basis until further order of this Court, respondent shall furnish to this Court, on notice to petitioner, a list of all of [*3]his active cases, wherein he sets forth (1) the name of the client; (2) the type of matter; (3) the date the representation commenced; (4) a brief description of the status of the matter; and (5) whether the client was retained or whether respondent was court-appointed to represent the client. Lastly, respondent may move to terminate the foregoing conditions after December 7, 2028. Garry, P.J., Aarons, Ceresia, McShan and Mackey, JJ., concur. ORDERED that respondent is found guilty of violating Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0) rules 1.1 (a); 1.3 (a); 1.4 (a) (1) (iii), (3), (4); 3.1 (a); 8.4 (c), (d); Rules of the Appellate Division, All Departments (22 NYCRR) § 1400.3; and it is further ORDERED that respondent is censured; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall be subject to the conditions as set forth in this decision; and it is further ORDERED that respondent may move this Court to terminate the foregoing conditions after December 7, 2028.