A New York litigation attorney has been barred from practicing law after three separate clients told regulators they paid her thousands of dollars for legal work that was never finished — and never refunded. The Appellate Division, First Department ordered Kelly Lynn McCollum suspended until further court order, capping months of unanswered warnings from the agency that investigates lawyer misconduct in Manhattan and the Bronx.
The court granted the Attorney Grievance Committee's motion for an interim suspension on October 15, according to ALABnews, which first reported the case. The disciplinary matter is formally titled In the Matter of Kelly Lynn McCollum and carries case number 2026-04559, per the same report. McCollum is described on the attorney-listing site Avvo as a litigation attorney based in New York City who earned her law license in 2010 after attending Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
Three Clients, Three Complaints
The allegations center on three separate clients who say they paid McCollum for legal services and got little or nothing in return. The first client paid her $2,700 in November 2024 for an ethics matter, then ended the representation in February 2025; McCollum acknowledged doing no work on the case and issuing no refund, the station's report states. A second client paid roughly $3,200 for a law-school-admission matter and said he received neither services nor his money back.
The third client paid a $1,350 retainer for a waiver petition tied to the February 2026 bar exam. McCollum conceded she never filed it, and the client ultimately filed the waiver petition himself, which was granted that same month, the outlet reported. McCollum acknowledged owing refunds to the first and third clients, though she maintained she had actually done more work than she was paid for in the second client's matter.
Months of Warnings Went Unanswered
According to the same account, the Attorney Grievance Committee began directing McCollum to answer the complaints in September 2025 and later sent her emails and letters warning that suspension was possible. She was granted an extension to submit responses by April 27, 2026, but her submissions were incomplete, and she never filed formal written answers. When she appeared for a deposition on April 3, 2026, she reportedly brought only a computer instead of the client files investigators had requested.
The committee's filing also noted that McCollum admitted receiving the complaints without ever answering them, and that a court found her cited health issues were unsupported by medical records. Once the committee moved for interim suspension, McCollum did not respond even after personal service of the motion, and certified mailings sent to her were returned undelivered, the report states. The seed reporting adds that she has a pending complaint in the Second Department as well.
A History of Prior Discipline
This is not McCollum's first brush with discipline. The same reporting states she received a letter of advisement in 2018 and an admonition in February 2025, and that she had previously faced an administrative suspension in Washington state over unpaid fees.
New York's rules give the Appellate Division authority to act quickly in cases like this. Under 22 NYCRR 1240.9(a), an attorney under investigation can be suspended on an interim basis if the court finds their conduct immediately threatens the public interest, according to New York Courts records from a separate 2020 disciplinary ruling. The Attorney Grievance Committee of the First Judicial Department is the body tasked with investigating complaints against attorneys whose offices sit in Manhattan or the Bronx, per the same court system.
McCollum's case is not an isolated example of this process in action. Court records show the committee has pursued similar interim-suspension motions this year, including against an attorney in Matter of Ogunsanya over a failure to respond to complaints and appear for an examination under oath, and in Matter of Tapia, where the First Department granted an interim suspension motion under the same disciplinary rule. In Matter of Farinella, the court likewise found that a respondent's failure to act supported an immediate suspension.
Under the court's order, McCollum must stop practicing law, comply with the directives set out by the Appellate Division, and return client property as required. She may request a post-suspension hearing within 20 days of being served with the order, the outlet reported, though it remains unclear whether she has done so or whether any hearing has taken place.
