Ariel S. Zitrin
Top rated Schools & Education attorney in New Rochelle, New York
AZ & CB Law & Consulting
Practice areas: Schools & Education
Licensed in New York since: 2005
Education: Pace University Law School
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2026 
Free Consultation AZ & CB Law & Consulting
221 Broadview AveNew Rochelle, NY 10804 Phone: 917-273-8665 Email: Ariel S. Zitrin Visit website
Details 
Ariel Zitrin is the former First Deputy Director for the New York City Department of Education’s Special Education Legal Unit (SEU). As First Deputy Director, Ms. Zitrin oversaw the day-to-day operation of the unit and supervised a staff of over 200 attorneys and paralegals in their investigation, settlement and/or litigation of all special education complaints brought against the DOE by parents seeking funding for private school tuition and special services.
In January 2024, Ms. Zitrin started her own education law practice and consulting firm, representing families in educational disputes with their local school districts and offering consulting services to both public and private education institutions. In June 2025, Ms. Zitrin took on a partner and rebranded as AZ & CB Law & Consulting.
Prior to joining the DOE in 2010, Ms. Zitrin practiced torts law as an insurance defense attorney and started her legal career as a prosecutor with the Queens County District Attorney’s Office.
Ms. Zitrin earned her J.D. in 2004 from Pace University School of Law. Before attending law school, she earned her B.A. with Distinction in 2001 from the University of Delaware, where she graduated cum laude and was Phi Beta Kappa. Ms. Zitrin is also a certified Organizational Development Professional.
First Admitted: 2005, New York
Professional Webpage: https://www.azlawconsulting.com/about
Bar / Professional Activity
- U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2007
- New York Bar Admission, 2005
Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)
- 90% hearing success rate in 2025, 2025
Special Licenses / Certifications
- Organization Development Certified Professional, 2023
Pro bono / Community Service
- Appointed Guardian Ad Litem - Impartial Hearing pursuant to IDEA, 2025
- Westchester County Bar Association Ethics and Professionalism Committee Co-Chair Education Law Committee Co-Chair
- Weekday Nursery School, Board of Directors, 2023 - 2025
- The Ursuline School, mock trial team attorney advisor, Westchester County, New York 2023 - present
Educational Background
- Pace University School of Law JD, 2001-2004
- University of Delaware - Honors Program BA with Distinction, cum laude, 1997-2001
- Bronx High School of Science, 1993-1997
Scholarly Lectures / Writings
- CLE organizer and instructor on Rule 4.2 - the "No Contact Rule" - and its exceptions. , CLE Instructor, The No Contact Rule and Its Exceptions, Westchester County Bar Association, Law Practice, Legal Ethics, Government, 2025
- In this follow-up installment to her February Ethics Corner column, Ariel S. Zitrin examines how Rule 4.2 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct should be applied in practice—and how it is too often misused. While Part I focused on the scope and exceptions to the “No Contact” Rule, this article emphasizes that ethical rules are intended as protective guardrails, not tactical weapons. Zitrin explains that unfounded accusations of ethical misconduct undermine the very principles the rules are designed to safeguard. She highlights several provisions—Rule 3.1 (prohibiting frivolous claims), Rule 3.3 (barring false statements), and Rule 8.4 (prohibiting dishonesty)—that can themselves be violated when lawyers level baseless accusations. Drawing on New York appellate decisions, including Levy v. Carol Management Corp. and Kernisan v. Taylor, she notes that courts have sanctioned attorneys for using ethics allegations to harass, intimidate, or gain strategic advantage. The article then situates Rule 4.2 in its proper context. While the rule bars direct communication with represented parties absent consent or legal authorization, Zitrin underscores that it is not absolute. Courts and ethics opinions recognize multiple exceptions, including ministerial or administrative communications, communications authorized by law (particularly when dealing with government officials), and communications protected by the First Amendment right to petition the government. She stresses that when such exceptions apply, attorneys should document their reasoning and provide transparent notice to opposing counsel to minimize conflict. Zitrin also offers practical guidance for responding to accusations of violating Rule 4.2. Lawyers should evaluate the purpose of the communication, identify applicable exceptions, and consult ethics authorities before escalating the dispute. Counter-accusations are discouraged, as they rarely serve client interests and can inflame tensions. If opposing counsel’s claim is frivolous, remedies exist under 22 NYCRR Part 130 or through appropriate bar-association channels. The article concludes by reiterating that ethics rules must be applied with restraint and integrity. Mischaracterizing permissible communications as professional misconduct corrodes trust, disrupts advocacy, and harms clients. Properly understood, Rule 4.2 protects fairness and professionalism; misused, it achieves the opposite., Author, The Ethics Corner: Rule 4.2 in Practice—Guardrails, Not Weapons, Digital Westchester Lawyer Magazine, School Law, Education Law, Ethics, Litigation, 2025
- In this article, Ariel S. Zitrin analyzes New York’s “No Contact” Rule—Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct—and clarifies its scope, purpose, and the significant exceptions that limit its reach. The discussion is prompted by a recent incident in which opposing counsel accused Zitrin of improperly contacting a public school board during a time-sensitive special education matter. The accusation, and the attorney’s reliance on an overly rigid reading of Rule 4.2, led Zitrin to examine how the rule actually applies, particularly in cases involving government entities. The article explains that Rule 4.2 prohibits lawyers from communicating with represented parties about the subject of a representation without counsel’s consent. However, Zitrin details that the rule is not absolute: courts have long recognized that communications with government bodies and public officials are treated differently under Rule 4.2 and Rule 1.13. The piece outlines the rule’s core purposes—preserving the attorney-client relationship, preventing undue influence, and avoiding inadvertent disclosures—while emphasizing that these purposes must be balanced against constitutional protections and practical realities. Zitrin identifies several important exceptions to the “No Contact” rule, including (1) organizational and government-entity distinctions regarding who counts as a “represented party,” (2) client-to-client communication with appropriate notice, (3) investigative communications prior to enforcement or litigation, (4) conversations on unrelated matters, and (5) communications that fall within First Amendment protections, such as petitions to government officials or discussions of public policy. Applying these principles, the article concludes that Zitrin’s communication with the school board—intended solely to schedule a federally mandated IEP meeting—was both ministerial and authorized by law, and therefore permissible. The article underscores the importance of correctly understanding Rule 4.2’s boundaries, particularly when attorneys interact with government officials, and encourages practitioners to revisit the rule to avoid misinterpretation and unnecessary escalation. The piece previews a future column addressing the ethical implications of threatening disciplinary complaints in professional communications., Author, The Ethics Corner: Rule 4.2 in Practice—Guardrails, Not Weapons, Digital Westchester Lawyer Magazine, School Law, Education Law, Ethics, Constitutional Law, 2025
- Organized and presented CLE on conflicts of interests in client representation in the school law context., CLE Instructor, Special Education School Law Ethics Considerations: Who is your client?, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, School Law, Education Law, Ethics, 2024
- CLE Organizer & Instructor, CLE Instructor, Special Education & The School District’s Legal Obligations to Students with Disabilities, Westchester County Bar Association, School Law, Education Law, Special Education Law, 2024
- In this article, Ariel S. Zitrin provides a comprehensive overview of the ethical challenges attorneys face when representing clients in school law matters, particularly under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The piece examines the legal framework governing who may file a due process complaint, the rights to representation during IDEA hearings, and the complexities of identifying the actual client in various educational dispute scenarios. Zitrin first explains the statutory standing rules, noting that both parents and school districts may file due process complaints concerning evaluations, placement, or the provision of FAPE. She highlights that IDEA and state regulations require complete and proper notice before a hearing can proceed. The article then outlines the right to representation, including the IDEA’s express allowance for parents to be represented not only by attorneys but also by non-lawyer advocates with specialized training. This broader representation landscape introduces its own ethical considerations. A significant portion of the article is devoted to clarifying who the lawyer’s client actually is. For LEA counsel, the client is the organization—not individual employees—making adherence to Rule 1.13 essential when interests within the district diverge. For attorneys representing families, determining the client can be more complex, especially when the child’s interests differ from those of the parent, when parental rights shift at the age of majority, or when custody orders allocate educational decision-making authority. Zitrin also addresses several types of conflicts of interest that can arise. These include the ethical risks when private school or service-provider counsel attempts to represent a family in an impartial hearing, which may create direct financial or institutional conflicts. She explains that such representation typically requires informed written waivers and may implicate rules prohibiting dishonesty or false statements if done without parental consent. The article further analyzes the ethical restrictions applicable when attorneys switch roles—from representing school districts to representing parents, or vice versa. Zitrin reviews relevant professional conduct rules and post-employment limitations, stressing the importance of avoiding matters in which a lawyer had prior substantial involvement as government counsel. Zitrin concludes by emphasizing that effective and ethical advocacy in education law requires a firm grasp of procedural safeguards, a clear understanding of representation rights, and careful navigation of conflicts. By adhering to these principles, attorneys can protect both their clients’ interests and the integrity of the administrative process., Author, Succession Planning: Practical and Ethical Benefits for Solo Practitioners and Small Firms, Digital Westchester Lawyer Magazine, Law Practice Management, 2024
- Organized and presented CLE on conflicts of interests in client representation in the school law context., CLE Instructor, Special Education School Law Ethics Considerations: Who is your client?, PLI: 23rd Annual School Law Institute, School Law, Education Law, Ethics, 2023
- The article examines the ethical complexities attorneys face when representing clients in school law matters under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It focuses on three central issues: who may file a due process complaint, who the attorney’s actual client is, and how to manage conflicts of interest that arise in the educational context. The article begins by explaining the statutory framework governing standing. Under IDEA § 1415 and New York regulations, only parents or school districts may file a due process complaint concerning identification, evaluation, placement, or the provision of FAPE. It also highlights that IDEA expressly allows non-attorney advocates to file complaints and represent parents at hearings, underscoring the broad conception of “representation” within IDEA proceedings. A substantial portion of the article analyzes who the client is—a question that differs depending on whether counsel represents the local educational agency (LEA) or the family. For LEA counsel, the client is the organization itself, not its individual employees. The article discusses how this role becomes challenging when employees’ interests diverge from those of the district. It emphasizes Rule 1.13’s requirement that counsel clarify this distinction whenever necessary. It also notes that Education Law § 3028, which provides for representation of DOE employees in civil or criminal actions, does not apply to IDEA administrative hearings, leaving representation responsibilities in those settings less defined. For attorneys representing families, the article highlights more nuanced challenges. Conflicts may arise between the interests of the parent and the child, particularly regarding educational decisions and hearing strategy. IDEA’s provisions on the transfer of rights at the age of majority, and procedures for appointing representatives when a student cannot provide informed consent, are discussed. The article also explores conflicts between custodial and non-custodial parents, citing Fuentes v. Board of Education, which clarifies that the custodial parent retains decision-making authority unless a court order specifies otherwise. The article then turns to conflicts of interest, particularly when a unilateral placement or service provider seeks to represent the family in an impartial hearing. It notes that such situations raise significant ethical concerns, including divided loyalties, financial conflicts, and potential violations of Rules 1.7, 3.3, and 8.4 if filings are made without informed parental consent. Finally, the article addresses the ethical challenges that arise when attorneys switch roles—such as moving from representing a school district to representing parents. It discusses conflict-of-interest rules, including Model Rule 1.11’s restrictions on matters in which the attorney previously participated and New York City’s one-year post-employment ban on compensated communications with former agencies. The article concludes by encouraging practitioners to ground their ethical decision-making in the text and purpose of the Rules of Professional Conduct, relevant case law, and ethics opinions, and to seek guidance when needed through colleagues or bar-association ethics hotlines., Author, Ethical Considerations When Representing Clients in The School Law Context, PLI: 23rd Annual School Law Institute, School Law, Education Law, Ethics, 2023
Office location for Ariel S. Zitrin
221 Broadview Ave
New Rochelle, NY 10804
Selections
1 Year Super Lawyers
- Super Lawyers: 2026