Dougherty, In Matter of

• Decision Date: 16 October 1959
• Citation: 164 N.E.2d 870,7 N.Y.2d 869,196 N.Y.S.2d 999
• Parties: , 164 N.E.2d 870 In the Matter of William A. DOUGHERTY, an Attorney, Appellant; Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 999

196 N.Y.S.2d 999

7 N.Y.2d 869, 164 N.E.2d 870

In the Matter of William A. DOUGHERTY, an Attorney Appellant; Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Argued Oct. 16, 1959.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 7 A.D.2d 163, 180 N.Y.S.2d 971.

Disciplinary proceeding was brought by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York against attorney, who was admitted to practice as an attorney on December 23, 1936 in the Second Judicial Department.

The Appellate Division, 7 A.D.2d 163, 180 N.Y.S.2d 971, entered order disbarring attorney and held that conduct of attorney in giving false testimony under oath before Securities and Exchange Commission breached standards of professional ethics warranting his disbarment, regardless of whether questions were sufficiently relevant to inquiry of commission as to subject him to prosecution for perjury and that grant of statutory immunity to attorney after he had given false testimony at prior hearing did not preclude subsequent disciplinary proceedings against the attorney.

The Appellate Division, 7 A.D.2d 907, 183 N.Y.S.2d 540, denied motion for leave to reargue, but granted motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and suspended operation of order of disbarment pending determination of appeal to Court of Appeals.

The attorney appealed to the Court of Appeals.

John T. Cahill, James B. Henry, Jr., William A. Jansen and William Jannen, Jr., New York City, for appellant.

Frank H. Gordon, New York City, for respondent.

Order 7 A.D.2d 163, 180 N.Y.S.2d 971, affirmed.

CONWAY, C. J., and DESMOND, DYE, FULD, FROESSEL and BURKE, JJ., concur.

VAN VOORHIS, J., dissents in the following opinion.

VAN VOORHIS, Judge (dissenting).

Disbarment is more severe discipline than I think would have been imposed by the Appellate Division, except for a lurking suspicion that Mr. Dougherty delivered $5,000 to the former Auditor of Public Accounts of Illnois for some evil purpose. More than a year later, this Illinois State official came into bad odor when he was widely publicized as having embezzled a great deal of public money, for which he was sent to prison. This was a Nation-wide scandal. It is not likely that Mr. Dougherty would have been disbarred except for the magnitude of this scandal and the resulting discredit of the recipient of this money who, at the time when the loan was made, was a powerful political figure in...