Matter of McCollum

Matter of McCollum 2026 NY Slip Op 06013 October 15, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Per Curiam 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 Kelly Lynn McCollum, an attorney and counselor-at-law: Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner, Kelly Lynn McCollum (OCA Atty. Reg. No. 4855813), Respondent. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Judicial Department Decided and Entered: October 15, 2026 Motion No. 2026-04301|Case No. 2026-04559| Present — Hon. Saliann Scarpulla, Justice Presiding, Manuel Mendez Marsha D. Michael Margaret A. Chan Shlomo S. Hagler Jorge Dopico, Chief Attorney, Attorney Grievance Committee, New York (Gina M. Patterson, of counsel), for petitioner. Respondent, pro se. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent, Kelly Lynn McCollum, was admitted, as Kelly Lynn Hall, to the Bar of the State of New York at a Term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on June 28, 2010. Per Curiam [*1] Respondent Kelly L. McCollum was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on June 28, 2010, under the name Kelly Lynn Hall (she has since changed her registered name to Kelly Lynn McCollum). Respondent's registered business address is in the First Judicial Department. By motion dated July 13, 2026, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) seeks an order, pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.9(a)(2) and (3) and Judiciary Law § 468-a(2), immediately suspending respondent from the practice of law until further order of this Court based on her admitted failure to answer three complaints, failure to provide the AGC with requested documents, and failure to update her registered business address with OCA. The AGC opened investigations pursuant to three separate complaints from clients of respondent. In the first complaint, filed in August 2025, complainant L.G. alleged, among other things, that he retained respondent in November 2024 for legal representation in an ethics matter and paid her $2,700, but she performed no work, failed to respond to his emails requesting an update, and failed to provide a refund despite his February 4, 2025 termination request and repeated follow-up communications. The AGC sent multiple letters in September and October 2025 to respondent's registered email and business addresses—one of which the USPS confirmed was delivered—requesting that she answer the complaint. Respondent failed to answer the complaint or request an extension. On November 14, 2025, respondent emailed the AGC acknowledging she owed L.G. a refund, attributing delays to mail issues and personal financial distress, and stating she expected to be able to repay him within approximately 30 days. When the AGC asked whether her email constituted her formal answer or whether she sought additional time, respondent did not reply. In a second complaint, also filed in August 2025, complainant C.S. alleged that he paid respondent approximately $3,200 for representation in a law school admission matter, but she failed to provide the agreed-upon services or refund the unearned fees. The AGC twice directed respondent to answer the complaint—first by an October 17, 2025 email, then by a December 9, 2025 letter sent by email and certified mail, which USPS records and a signed return receipt show was delivered—but respondent did not answer. On February 11, 2026, AGC Staff Counsel instructed respondent to answer both C.S.'s and L.G.'s complaints within 10 days, warned that continued nonresponse could result in suspension or formal charges, and directed her to contact the AGC to schedule an examination under oath. In a third complaint, filed in January 2026, complainant P.M. alleged that he retained respondent in November 2024 to file a waiver petition so he could sit for the [*2] February 2026 New York bar exam. P.M. allegedly paid respondent a $1,350 retainer, and repeatedly sought updates by phone and text, but respondent largely failed to respond and at times told him he needed "forced patience." P.M. ultimately filed his own waiver petition, which was granted. Respondent has not refunded the retainer despite P.M.'s repeated requests. The AGC directed respondent, by a February 13, 2026 email to answer the complaint within 20 days, but she did not respond or request an extension. On March 13, 2026, respondent confirmed by phone that she had received both the P.M. complaint and the AGC's earlier email. Staff Counsel scheduled her deposition for April 3, 2026 and requested she bring the client files for all three complainants' matters. On March 20, 2026, the AGC again directed respondent—by first-class mail, certified mail, and email—to answer P.M.'s complaint within 10 days and warned of possible interim suspension. The certified mailing was returned marked "Moved, Left no Address" and "Forward Expired." The AGC does not address if the first-class mailing was delivered. Respondent agreed to appear for a deposition but requested that her testimony serve as answers to the three complaints at issue. Staff Counsel initially agreed but later directed her on April 2, 2026 to submit written answers to each of the complaints by April 17. Respondent appeared for her April 3 deposition but brought only her computer rather than the requested client files. Respondent admitted receiving, but not answering, the three complaints; acknowledged doing no work for L.G. and owing him a refund; claimed she performed more work than paid for in the C.S. matter; and admitted she failed to file P.M.'s waiver petition, lost track of P.M.'s matter, and owed him a refund. During the deposition, Staff Counsel also addressed respondent's disciplinary history, including a 2018 Letter of Advisement for failing to respond to a client, a February 2025Admonition for similar conduct and failing to provide a letter of engagement, a pending Second Department complaint, and her administrative suspension in Washington State for nonpayment of fees. Respondent further testified to longstanding health and personal issues, including depression, ADHD, anemia, excessive alcohol use, kidney infections requiring hospitalization, a concussion, conflict following her 2024 divorce, and difficulties managing administrative aspects of solo practice due to ADHD. After respondent's deposition, the AGC repeatedly sought her cooperation, directing her on April 7, 2026 to produce client correspondence, work product, billing records, and medical records concerning the health issues raised by respondent at her deposition. In an April 21, 2026 email, Staff Counsel warned respondent that her continued failure to answer the three complaints due April 17 could result in interim suspension. Although respondent obtained an extension to April 27 to answer the three [*3] complaints and uploaded partial materials for the L.G. and C.S. matters on April 23 and 24, Staff Counsel notified her on April 30 that the submissions were incomplete and that no written answers had been provided. Respondent then failed to respond to multiple follow-up emails and voicemails in early May. The AGC sent further letters on May 13 and June 1 by first-class and certified mail to her registered business and home addresses; each certified mailing was returned marked "Moved, Left no Address," "Forward Expired," or "Unclaimed," and respondent never replied. To date, respondent has not submitted written answers to any of the three complaints, provided client records for P.M., or supplied the medical documentation concerning the medical issues she referenced in her deposition. Now, the AGC moves for respondent's interim suspension under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2) and (3). Section 1240.9(a) provides for an interim suspension "upon a finding by the Court that the respondent has engaged in conduct immediately threatening the public interest. Such a finding may be based upon: (2) the respondent's admission under oath to the commission of professional misconduct; (3) the respondent's failure to comply with a lawful demand of a Committee in an investigation under these Rules " Specifically, the AGC asserts that respondent admitted in sworn testimony that she does not dispute the allegations of L.G. and P.M., which constitutes professional misconduct. According to the AGC, respondent agreed to complete legal work for both clients, accepted legal fees from both clients, and, in each case, failed to do the agreed-upon work, failed to respond to communications from her clients, and failed to refund the unearned fees to her clients. The AGC argues that "[r]espondent's admissions with respect to both clients establish that she neglected legal matters entrusted to her, in violation of Rule 1.3(b) [of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0)], failed to keep her clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters and to comply with reasonable requests for information, in violation of Rules 1.4(a)(3) and 1.4(a)(4), and failed to return unearned fees upon termination of the representation, in violation of Rule 1.16(e)." The AGC further contends that respondent's ongoing failure to submit written answers to the complaints, provide requested records, or update her address with OCA as required by Judiciary Law §468-a(2) warrants interim suspension, particularly given herprior discipline for similar misconduct. An AGC process server personally served respondent in hand with the motion at her residence, and the initial return date was adjourned at respondent's request, but respondent has not submitted a response to the motion. The AGC has met its burden for interim suspension under 1240.9(a)(2) and (3) and respondent should be immediately suspended. Since September 2025, the AGC has [*4] repeatedly directed respondent to answer the three complaints at issue, and at her April 3, 2026, deposition she admitted receiving those directives yet failed to respond. Her lack of cooperation continued even after her deposition: she still did not answer the complaints or produce all requested documents despite multiple opportunities to do so (see Matter of Kaufman, 238 AD3d 5 [1st Dept 2025]; Matter of Tessler, 215 AD3d 61 [1st Dept 2023]; Matter of Fox, 197 AD3d 36 [1st Dept 2021]). Although respondent cited health issues, she has not provided any medical records to substantiate them (see Matter of Co, 148 AD3d 142 [1st Dept 2017]). Additionally, her failure to update her registered business address with OCA, as required by Judiciary Law §468-a(2), has impeded the AGC's ability to contact her and independently supports interim suspension (see Matter of Luke, 203 AD3d 27 [1st Dept 2022]; Matter of Greenblum, 199 AD3d 84 [1st Dept 2021]). Accordingly, the motion should be granted, and respondent suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court. All concur. Wherefore, it is Ordered that the motion by the Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department for interim suspension, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a)(2) and (3), is granted, and respondent, Kelly Lynn McCollum, is suspended from the practice of law in the State of New York effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and It is further Ordered that, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension, respondent, Kelly Lynn McCollum, is commanded to desist and refrain from (1) the practice of law in any form, either as principal or agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and It is further Ordered that, during the period of suspension, respondent, Kelly Lynn McCollum, shall comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see 22 NYCRR 1240.15), which are made part hereof; and It is further Ordered that if respondent, Kelly Lynn McCollum, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith. It is further Ordered that, within 20 days of the date of service of this order, respondent Kelly Lynn McCollum, may submit a request, in writing, to this Court for a post-suspension hearing (see 22 NYCRR 1240.9[c]). Entered: October 15, 2026