News

John Sarcone Misconduct Committee finds basis for professional misconduct

John Sarcone misconduct committee action found a basis for professional misconduct after complaints over his conduct as interim U.S. attorney.

John Sarcone Misconduct Committee finds basis for professional misconduct

A New York state attorney disciplinary committee said it found a sufficient basis for professional misconduct by and closed the matter after taking action on a complaint that accused him of false statements, deception and retaliation tied to his brief run as interim U.S. attorney in the Northern District of New York.

The Attorney Grievance Committee of the Third Judicial Department of New York said in a formal statement that it had deliberated, reached its conclusion and concluded the case. It did not disclose the sanction, saying the disciplinary papers are sealed and confidential. The committee also said it dealt with the complaint in a fair and unbiased manner.

The complaint was filed in August 2025 by the and centered on Sarcone’s conduct after he was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney. It alleged he made false claims about the severity of an incident involving a man’s arrest under improperly heightened charges, made apparently deceptive statements about the nature of his residence, and retaliated against the media for reporting those claims. , who spoke for the group, said Sarcone had behaved erratically and potentially illegally over the last four months and that his conduct raised questions about his fitness as a lawyer.

Sarcone had been overseeing the office since March 2025, but a federal judge later ruled he was unlawfully serving in the role. U.S. District Judge also found he had no legal authority when he subpoenaed the office of New York Attorney General during the summer. He was barred from overseeing the criminal charges in that matter in January, and interim U.S. attorneys cannot remain in the post for more than 120 days.

The grievance committee’s decision leaves one central fact intact: it found misconduct, but the public still cannot see what penalty, if any, followed. Sarcone remains first assistant in the , and the sealed record means the question is not whether the committee acted, but how far it went before closing the file.

Share this article Tweet Facebook