A federal judge in Manhattan has dismissed the majority of a due process lawsuit filed by former attorney Erwin Rosenberg, who contested his disbarment in Florida and the subsequent reciprocal disciplinary actions in Massachusetts and New York. The court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over disciplinary officials from other states.
Rosenberg’s legal troubles began in Florida, where he was permanently disbarred by the Florida Supreme Court in 2017 for practicing law in contemptuous defiance of court orders. Despite the disbarment, he continued to represent clients and hold himself out as an attorney in good standing, leading to further contempt proceedings and his eventual permanent disbarment. ([docs.justia.com](https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv00222/634843/132?utm_source=openai))
Following his disbarment in Florida, Rosenberg faced reciprocal disciplinary actions in other jurisdictions where he was licensed to practice. In Massachusetts, he failed to notify the Board of Bar Overseers of his Florida disbarment until January 2021, violating a state bar rule. Consequently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court disbarred him in December 2021, a decision affirmed on appeal in February 2023. ([masslawyersweekly.com](https://masslawyersweekly.com/2023/02/28/attorneys-reciprocal-discipline-first-amendment/?utm_source=openai))
Similarly, in New York, the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department sought reciprocal discipline. Rosenberg opposed the motion, but in February 2022, the Third Judicial Department disbarred him, citing his misconduct in Florida. His subsequent motions for reconsideration and to vacate the disbarment were denied, with the court finding no substantial constitutional question involved. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-third-department/2023/pm-253-23.html?utm_source=openai))
In his federal lawsuit, Rosenberg alleged that the disciplinary proceedings in Florida, Massachusetts, and New York violated his procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He contended that the rules of professional responsibility imposed content-based restrictions on speech, infringing upon his First Amendment rights. However, both the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the New York Appellate Division have previously rejected this argument, affirming that states may regulate professional conduct, even when it incidentally involves speech. ([masslawyersweekly.com](https://masslawyersweekly.com/2023/02/28/attorneys-reciprocal-discipline-first-amendment/?utm_source=openai))
The federal court’s dismissal underscores the challenges attorneys face when contesting reciprocal disciplinary actions across multiple jurisdictions. It also highlights the judiciary’s deference to state bar authorities in regulating the legal profession and enforcing ethical standards.