On May 5, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission reinstated Steven Altman, a New York attorney, to appear and practice before the Commission — 15 years after permanently barring him in November 2010 for a scheme in which he told the opposing lawyer in an SEC administrative proceeding that his client, a prospective witness, would likely not cooperate or would not recall relevant facts, provided that one of the respondents paid his client the severance and debt relief she was seeking. The underlying misconduct occurred between January 28 and March 10, 2004, during the Harrison Securities Inc. proceeding — and came to light only because the opposing attorney, Irving Einhorn, secretly tape-recorded five of six telephone conversations with Altman and later turned the recordings over to law enforcement.
The Commission found Altman’s violations egregious, recurrent, and reflecting a high degree of scienter, and permanently denied him the privilege of practicing before it. He challenged the bar through federal litigation and lost at the D.C. Circuit. He has since been reinstated to the New York Bar, the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District of New York, and has practiced before state and federal courts without incident. The Commission found good cause for reinstatement and issued its order on May 5, 2026.
The Misconduct Arose from an Attempt to Leverage a Witness’s Testimony for Her Severance Payment
The Harrison Securities proceeding was an SEC administrative case against a broker-dealer and its CEO, Frederick Blumer, for books and records, net capital, and financial reporting violations. The Division of Enforcement had identified Cathy Rosen — a former employee at a company that shared office space with Harrison — as a potential witness who could undermine a key defense raised by Harrison and Blumer. Rosen had worked for both companies and had knowledge relevant to the case.
At the time the Division contacted her, Rosen was in a separate dispute with her former employer over severance pay and over her name remaining on two car leases she had co-signed for Blumer. She retained Altman to help her pursue those grievances. After the Division reached out to Altman about the possibility of using Rosen as a witness, Altman placed a series of calls to Einhorn, who represented Harrison and Blumer. In those calls, Altman indicated that Rosen would likely not cooperate with the Division or would not remember the relevant facts, provided that one of the respondents paid his client the recompense she sought. The SEC’s opinion described this as conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation — a direct violation of New York’s professional responsibility rules.
Einhorn Tape-Recorded Five Conversations and Turned the Tapes Over to Law Enforcement
What Altman did not know was that Einhorn was recording their calls. Five of the six telephone conversations between Altman and Einhorn were tape-recorded. After the Harrison proceeding concluded, Einhorn withdrew as counsel for Harrison and Blumer and disclosed the tapes to law enforcement authorities. Division staff also reported the conversations to the Commission for possible attorney misconduct. Altman’s own words on tape formed the primary evidentiary record for the Rule 102(e) proceeding that followed.
In September 2004, the administrative law judge in the Harrison proceeding found that Harrison and Blumer had violated the federal securities laws but that Rosen had been “thoroughly impeached” on cross-examination and was not a reliable witness. The damage to Rosen’s credibility was, according to the record, partly a consequence of the circumstances Altman’s conduct had created. The ALJ in the subsequent Rule 102(e) proceeding imposed a nine-month suspension. The Commission, on full review, found the violations more serious and imposed a permanent bar.
Altman Challenged the Permanent Bar at the D.C. Circuit and Lost in 2011
Altman contested the permanent bar on multiple grounds, arguing among other things that the SEC lacked jurisdiction to discipline him without a prior state disciplinary finding and that the sanction was unconstitutionally punitive. He filed a federal lawsuit in addition to his petition for review at the D.C. Circuit. The circuit court upheld the permanent bar in full in 2011, in Altman v. SEC, 666 F.3d 1322 (D.C. Cir. 2011), finding the Commission had authority to act and that its sanction was proportionate to conduct that was “egregious, recurrent, and reflected a high degree of scienter.”
Altman was suspended from the New York Bar following the SEC proceeding and the subsequent state disciplinary review. He was reinstated to the New York Bar in May 2018, to the Eastern District of New York in July 2018, and to the Southern District of New York in January 2023. In his reinstatement application to the SEC, he provided documentation of all jurisdictional reinstatements and attested that he had not been subject to any convictions, sanctions, court proceedings, or disciplinary actions beyond those underlying the original order. He stated that since reinstatement he had practiced frequently before state and federal courts without any incident.
Altman Expressed Sincere Remorse and the Commission Found No Basis to Deny Reinstatement
In his application for reinstatement to the SEC, Altman addressed his original conduct directly. He wrote: “My conduct in January and February 2004 was unquestionably and unequivocally wrong. I accept the SEC findings which found me guilty of very serious professional conduct, without qualification.” The Commission noted that no information had come to its attention relating to Altman’s character, integrity, professional conduct, or qualifications that would be a basis for denying his application or indicate that reinstatement would not be in the public interest.
The SEC’s reinstatement order, issued May 5, 2026, finds that Altman has complied with all terms of the original bar, has been restored to good standing in all relevant jurisdictions, and has demonstrated a clean record since being reinstated to state and federal courts. The reinstatement is to practice before the Commission as an attorney, restoring the privilege that was permanently denied in 2010. Altman is described in the record as a general commercial litigator who rarely practiced before the Commission prior to the original misconduct.
Conclusion
The Altman case spans more than two decades: misconduct in 2004, a permanent bar in 2010, a failed challenge at the D.C. Circuit in 2011, state bar reinstatement beginning in 2018, and finally SEC reinstatement in 2026. The original violation was singular in its mechanics — an attorney using a witness’s testimony as negotiating leverage in a financial dispute — and it was proven entirely through recordings made without his knowledge by the opposing counsel. The arc from that January 2004 phone call to the May 5, 2026 reinstatement order reflects both the severity with which the Commission treated the original conduct and the completeness of the rehabilitation record Altman ultimately built. He is now restored to practice before the Commission, more than 22 years after the conversations that cost him the privilege in the first place.
