- October 14, 2025 - DeBlasio admits malpractice on recorded call
- October 23, 2025 - DeBlasio files Motion to Withdraw (just 7 days later)
- October 24, 2025 - Withdrawal granted
- November 8, 2025 - Next deadline (status report) - Mrs. Tepper left without counsel
- Missed service deadline despite 6 warnings → Gave OPCO time-bar defense
- Failed to order transcripts despite 6 requests → Gave OPCO evidentiary argument
- Admitted full responsibility on recording → Acknowledged malpractice
- Filed Motion to Withdraw blaming clients → Concealed malpractice from court
- Refused to correct record despite offer → Prevented equitable tolling remedy
- Abandon approximately $95,000 in claims for improper fees/commissions
- Lose $9,000 in expert witness costs
- Pay $3,000 for transcripts DeBlasio should have ordered
- Face sanctions threats in federal court
- Withdraw from federal court litigation due to fear of OPCO's escalating sanctions threats
| Rule | Violation |
|---|---|
| Rule 1.1 (Competence) |
Missing critical service deadline despite six client warnings demonstrates incompetent representation |
| Rule 1.3 (Diligence) |
Failing to order official transcripts despite six client requests over four months when transcripts were essential to federal court motion |
| Rule 1.4 (Communication) |
Failed to keep Complainants informed about true status of case, including that service had not been completed on time |
| Rule 3.3 (Candor) |
Motion to Withdraw failed to disclose admitted malpractice and implied clients were responsible for case difficulties - allowing false narrative in federal court record |
| Rule 8.4(c) (Dishonesty) |
Admitting full responsibility privately, promising to "take accountability," then filing Motion to Withdraw that conceals malpractice constitutes dishonest conduct |
February 6, 2026 – ARDC Second Supplemental Filing
Oppenheimer's Own Filing Exposes the Truth About DeBlasio's Malpractice
Ms. Wood's "No Representational Harm" Claim Debunked
On January 16, 2026, Attorney Allison L. Wood represented to the ARDC that DeBlasio's conduct caused "no representational harm" to Complainants. Three weeks later, on February 6, 2026, Oppenheimer & Co. filed a 7-page brief in federal court that was built entirely on the consequences of DeBlasio's misconduct—weaponizing the very evidence of his malpractice against the clients he harmed.
The Smoking Gun: Oppenheimer's filing proved that DeBlasio's malpractice caused substantial representational harm—directly contradicting his attorney's representation to the ARDC.
Four False Representations to the ARDC
FALSE CLAIM: "The Transcripts Did Not Exist"
Ms. Wood's Claim: Mr. Weiner "made repeated requests for something that did not exist."
The Truth: DeBlasio had the official FINRA audio recordings in his possession the entire time. The recordings existed from day one and could have been transcribed at any time.
Proof: Mr. Weiner made six documented requests for transcript preparation. DeBlasio's own associate, Joseph Two, emailed: "Jordan's not giving up on his official transcripts—what do you want to do?" DeBlasio did nothing. Mr. Weiner later obtained the recordings himself and had them transcribed—proving they existed all along.
FALSE CLAIM: "Retaining Other Counsel"
Ms. Wood's Claim: Complainants "were retaining other counsel."
The Truth: Complainants have been forced to proceed pro se throughout these federal court proceedings because no attorney would accept the case after DeBlasio's malpractice created the procedural catastrophe Oppenheimer now exploits.
Impact: No competent attorney would take on a complex federal court case challenging a FINRA arbitration award at the eleventh hour, especially after the service deadline had already been missed and sanctions were being threatened.
FALSE CLAIM: "Withdrawal Was Not at a Critical Time"
Ms. Wood's Claim: The timing of the withdrawal "did not occur during a critical time in the case."
The Truth: DeBlasio withdrew on October 22, 2025—just 8 days after his recorded admission of "I take full responsibility"—while Oppenheimer's cross-motion for sanctions was pending.
Timeline: Those sanctions forced co-petitioner Terri Tepper, the 83-year-old widow and executor, to withdraw from the case entirely. Every element of this timing was critical.
FALSE CLAIM: "Genuinely Remorseful"
Ms. Wood's Claim: DeBlasio is "genuinely remorseful that this occurred."
The Truth: If DeBlasio were genuinely remorseful, he would provide an accountability letter acknowledging that the late service was caused by his error—enabling Complainants to establish equitable tolling and have their case heard on the merits.
His Refusal: DeBlasio has refused to provide this letter. His refusal to take the single action that would help his former clients—while costing him nothing—speaks louder than any representation of remorse.
Pattern of Conduct: Every Action Harmed Clients, Helped Oppenheimer
The ARDC Second Supplemental Filing documents an undeniable pattern: every significant action taken by Attorney DeBlasio harmed his clients and helped Oppenheimer.
Six Ignored Deadline Warnings
Result: Gave Oppenheimer a time-bar defense to avoid all substantive review
Six Ignored Transcript Requests
Result: Gave Oppenheimer evidentiary arguments that Petitioners "failed to provide official transcripts"
Recorded Admission Followed by Concealed Withdrawal
Result: Admitted "full responsibility" privately, then filed withdrawal motion that concealed the malpractice
Withdrawal at Critical Time
Result: Withdrew 8 days after admission, while Oppenheimer's sanctions motion was pending—forcing 83-year-old widow to abandon her case
Refusal to Provide Accountability Letter
Result: Prevents clients from establishing equitable tolling—the single action that would help them while costing him nothing
The ARDC Second Supplemental Filing asks the Commission to investigate a critical question:
"Was DeBlasio's pattern of failures mere incompetence, or was it intentional conduct designed to harm his clients and benefit Oppenheimer? This Commission has the authority and the obligation to investigate whether that alignment is more than coincidental."