NewsIn its October 22, 2026 decision in Matter of Application for Divulgence by Campaign for Accountability, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department established significant precedent on public access to previously confidential attorney-disciplinary materials. In the wake of the Second Circuit’s decision in Civil Rights Corps v. LaSalle, the Third Department confirmed that New York attorney-disciplinary matters remain confidential, but that confidentiality is no longer absolute once a grievance committee issues its final adjudicatory disposition. To that end, the decision likely falls well short of the broader transparency regime that access advocates might have expected after Civil Rights Corps.
The Court addressed how far the public’s First Amendment right of access reaches into New York’s attorney-disciplinary system after the Second Circuit’s decision in Civil Rights Corps v. LaSalle. The case arose from a grievance filed by Campaign for Accountability (“CfA”) against attorney John A. Sarcone III, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, based on Sarcone’s conduct during and after a June 2025 incident in which he was the victim of criminal behavior. After the Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department (“AGC”) investigated the complaint, it found a sufficient basis for professional misconduct and issued an admonition to Sarcone dated April 1, 2026. However, in accordance with the mandates of Judiciary Law § 90(10) and 22 NYCRR § 1240.18, the AGC advised CfA that it could not disclose the specific nature of that action.
CfA then sought disclosure of all records, papers, and documents concerning the disciplinary proceeding, including AGC’s ultimate adjudicatory disposition as well as any “litigation documents submitted to AGC” as part of the disciplinary proceeding. AGC did not oppose disclosure of its ultimate disposition to the extent CfA relied on a First Amendment access theory, but it opposed disclosure of internal-file materials as investigatory or work product. Sarcone opposed disclosure altogether.
The Court began with the traditional New York framework for “good cause” divulgence pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(10). Applying that framework, the Court rejected CfA’s arguments for divulgence pursuant to the Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters (22 NYCRR) § 1240.18 (d), reasoning that CfA was not a law-enforcement or regulatory body, Sarcone had not waived confidentiality, and CfA’s claim that disclosure would not cause additional reputational harm was speculative because AGC may make findings beyond those alleged in the complaint.
However, in line with the Second Circuit’s holding in Civil Rights Corps v. LaSalle, the Third Department agreed with CfA that a presumptive First Amendment right of access attaches to AGC’s adjudicatory disposition in an attorney disciplinary proceeding. In turn, because neither AGC nor Sarcone rebutted that presumption with specific, on-the-record findings showing that continued confidentiality was essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored to serve that interest, the Court ordered AGC to disclose the April 1, 2026 admonition imposed on Sarcone.
The extent of that presumption, however, was sharply curtailed by the Court, as it further held that materials in AGC’s possession before an adjudicatory disposition or formal Appellate Division proceeding are investigatory in nature, not litigation documents subject to presumptive public access. The Court reasoned that the attorney’s response to a grievance complaint is gathered to determine what happened and whether further inquiry is warranted, not to crystallize adversarial positions for inevitable litigation. On that basis, the Court denied CfA access to Sarcone’s responsive papers and other internal materials.
The significance of the decision lies in that narrowing language. The Third Department acknowledged that Civil Rights Corps had changed the landscape by recognizing a First Amendment presumption for at least some attorney-disciplinary outcomes, but it refused to treat that development as a wholesale opening of grievance files. In practical terms, the Third Department pulled back what might otherwise have been read as a landmark expansion of public access: the ultimate adjudicatory disposition may be subject to disclosure, but the investigative machinery that precedes it remains presumptively confidential absent some independent showing of good cause. To that end, the Third Department emphasized that Civil Rights Corps did not address access to internal reports or investigatory work product, leaving room for the Court to distinguish between final adjudicatory outcomes and pre-disposition grievance-file materials.
The Court’s ruling preserves the inherent nature of private discipline subject to case-specific access litigation. In such proceedings, the burden to maintain confidentiality is substantial once the First Amendment presumption attaches. Continued secrecy requires specific, on-the-record findings that confidentiality is essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In the future, public-interest organizations, media entities, and complainants may invoke the First Amendment to seek final disciplinary dispositions, but they should expect courts to preserve confidentiality over underlying investigative responses, work product, witness materials, and internal grievance-committee records, absent a separate and compelling showing of good cause.
Sarcone has sought a stay of the Third Department’s order, and that request remains pending.
Additional Information