Birrell, In re

Decision Date29 May 1961
PartiesIn the Matter of Lowell M. BIRRELL, an Attorney.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Eric Nightingale, New York City (Raymond P. Whearty, New York City, with him on the brief), for petitioner Assn. of the Bar of the City of New York.

Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, VALENTE, McNALLY and EAGER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in this Department on January 13, 1930. A Referee has found that respondent willfully failed to appear in response to a subpoena of the United States District Court on October 7, 1957 and failed to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Court to answer the charges of criminal contempt that ensued. Moreover, the Referee found that respondent is in fact a fugitive from justice and that he has willfully failed to submit to the jurisdiction of New York State to answer an indictment for Grand Larceny found by the Grand Jury of the County of New York on July 1, 1959 and to submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts to answer an indictment for Conspiracy found by the Federal Grand Jury for the Southern District of New York in August, 1959. The New York authorities have been unsuccessful in attempts to extradite respondent from Brazil. Respondent's explanation, that his continued absence from the United States stems from restrictions against his leaving Brazil pending completion of an investigation here as to the legality of his entry in Brazil, was properly held by the Referee to be unconvincing.

The evidence sustains the findings and report of the Referee. Respondent's departure and continued absence from the United States, under the circumstances disclosed, must be regarded as deliberate and contemptuous of the judicial process, both State and Federal. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the standards of responsibility and integrity required for further membership in the Bar since it clearly involves conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice within the meaning of Section 90, subd. 2, of the Judiciary Law. When an attorney deliberately ignores process of the Court and allows serious charges to remain unresolved against him by intentionally avoiding the jurisdiction of the New York State and Federal Courts, under the inexcusable circumstances shown in this proceeding, he is no longer entitled to remain a member of the Bar. Respondent should be disbarred.

Respondent disbarred.

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • United States v. Birrell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • November 15, 1967
    ...referee's finding was subsequently approved by the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. In the Matter of Birrell, 13 A.D.2d 220, 215 N.Y.S.2d 293 (1st Dept. 1961).27 Since defendant's return to the United States, the trial of the indictment has been delayed over three yea......
  • Muniz v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 1978
    ...A.2d 206 (1971); In re Turco, Jr. v. Monroe County Bar Assoc., 46 A.D.2d 490, 363 N.Y.S.2d 349, 351, 360 (1975); In re Birrell, 13 A.D.2d 220, 215 N.Y.S.2d 293, 294 (1961). Muniz' plea of guilty resulting in his final conviction of the felony offenses of willfully, knowingly and unlawfully ......
  • United States v. Birrell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 11, 1965
    ...7, 1957 to testify in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Swan-Finch Oil Corporation, et al., Civil 119-232. He did not appear (13 A.D.2d 220, 215 N.Y. S.2d 293, 1st Dept., 1961) and sometime in October 1957 left this country (N.Y. Times, April 24, 1964, page 52). One of the enterprises w......
  • Committee on Legal Ethics of West Virginia State Bar v. Mullins
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1976
    ...In addition to the cases cited in the majority opinion, See, Matter of Andrews, 378 N.Y.S.2d 408 (App.Div.1976); In Re Birrell, 13 A.D.2d 220, 215 N.Y.S.2d 293 (1961); In Re Cohen, 7 N.Y.2d 488, 199 N.Y.S.2d 658, 166 N.E.2d 672 (1960); In Re Young, 316 S.W.2d 855 (Ky. I fear that the majori......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT