Spevack, Matter of

• Decision Date: 01 December 1965
• Citation: 266 N.Y.S.2d 126,16 N.Y.2d 1048
• Parties: , 213 N.E.2d 457 In the Matter of Samuel SPEVACK, an Attorney. Solomon A. KLEIN, Respondent v. Samuel SPEVACK, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 126

266 N.Y.S.2d 126

16 N.Y.2d 1048, 213 N.E.2d 457

In the Matter of Samuel SPEVACK, an Attorney.

Solomon A. KLEIN, Respondent v. Samuel SPEVACK, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 1, 1965.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Disciplinary proceeding was brought against attorney.

The Appellate Division entered an order confirming the report of a referee and directing that the attorney be disbarred on the basis of the referee's unchallenged finding that the attorney refused to testify and to produce his records, the held that an attorney, like any other citizen, had an absolute right to invoke his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and to refuse to supply pertinent information, but that, when he did so, he failed in his inherent duty to the court to divulge all pertinent information necessary to show his character and fitness to remain a member of the Bar and necessary to proper administration of justice and must therefore forfeit his privilege of remaining a member of the Bar.

The attorney appealed to the Court of Appeals on constitutional grounds and made a motion in the Court of Appeals for a stay of the operation of the order of disbarment.

Order affirmed on the authority of Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 81 S.Ct. 954, 6 L.Ed.2d 156 and on the further ground that the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to a demand, not for oral testimony, but that an attorney produce records required by law to be kept by him (Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 66 S.Ct. 1256, 90 L.Ed. 1453; Shapiro v. United States, 223 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 1375, 92 L.Ed. 1787).

Motion for stay denied.

All concur, FULD, J., in the following memorandum: Although I still adhere to the views I expressed in dissent in Matter of Cohen (Hurley), 7 N.Y.2d 488, 199 N.Y.S.2d 658, 166 N.E.2d 672, affd. sub nom. Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 81 S.Ct. 954, 6 L.Ed.2d 156), I deem myself concluded by that decision and, accordingly, concur for affirmance. (But cf. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653.)