In re Flannery
| Decision Date | 23 October 1914 |
| Citation | 212 N.Y. 610,106 N.E. 630 |
| Parties | In re FLANNERY. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Joseph A. Flannery, an attorney at law, was disbarred for unprofessional conduct on the complaint of the Bar Association of the City of New York (150 App. Div. 369,135 N. Y. Supp. 612), and he appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 152 App. Div. 884,136 N. Y. Supp. 1135.
Edward W. Hatch, of New York City, for appellant.
William D. Guthrie, of New York City, for respondent.
[1][2] The Appellate Division has found the appellant guilty of gross unprofessional conduct and has decreed his disbarment. On this record our power of review is limited to the consideration of the single question whether the finding of guilt has any evidence to sustain it. Matter of Goodman, 199 N. Y. 143, 92 N. E. 211;Matter of Robinson, 209 N. Y. 354, 103 N. E. 160. It is not for us, where the evidence is conflicting, to determine where lies the truth. It is not for us, where opposing inferences may be drawn, to determine which we shall accept and which reject. It is not for us to revise the measure of punishment which guilt, when adjudged, is to entail. In establishing the standard of conduct to which the bar must, at its peril, conform, the Appellate Division has a wide discretion, with which we have neither the wish nor the power to interfere. If the conduct condemned is not wholly blameless, the extent to which it shall be reprobated is not for our determination. We have no right to say, where any measure of blame attaches to the offense, that the standard has been set too high.
In the light of these guiding principles we have considered this voluminous record, and have reached the conclusion that the evidence sustains the findings. It would serve no useful purpose to follow the course of the proofs and to point out the inferences to be drawn from them. The court below, where conflicting inferences may have been possible, has seen fit, after weighing the evidence, to draw those adverse to the appellant, and to the rectitude of his purposes and motives. Drawing these inferences it has held that his conduct falls short of the standard to which the conform. The appellant would have us say that the conduct which the court below has thus condemned is wholly free from blame. We are asked in effect to serve notice on the bar that what was done by the appellant may, with impunity and honor, be done by others. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erdmann v. Stevens
...of an Appellate Division in a disciplinary proceeding unless the conduct condemned by it is "wholly blameless," Matter of Flannery, 212 N.Y. 610, 611, 106 N.E. 630 (1914), must also be rejected. The basis of his federal suit is not a denial that he made the statements attributed to him but ......
-
Mildner v. Gulotta
...professional misconduct by the Appellate Division cannot secure any appellate review of questions of law or fact. Matter of Flannery, 212 N.Y. 610, 611, 106 N.E. 630 (1914). II. Three cases, each involving an attorney disciplined by the Appellate Division and denied the right to appeal that......
-
Cohen, In re
...City of New York, 222 App.Div. 580, 584-587, 227 N.Y.S. 1; Matter of Flannery, 150 App.Div. 369, 371, 135 N.Y.S. 612, 614, affirmed 212 N.Y. 610, 106 N.E. 630). And with respect to any particular member of the Bar, whenever the occasion demands or whenever his character and fitness are call......
-
Padilla, Matter of
... ... 925; Matter of Kaufmann, 245 N.Y. 423, 432, 157 N.E. 730; Matter of Dolphin, 240 N.Y. 89, 94, 147 N.E. 538; Matter of Flannery, 212 N.Y ... 610, 106 N.E. 630). While the power to sanction is premised on a finding of guilt by the Appellate Division, that grant of authority must be read to embrace certain subsidiary power when serious misconduct is admitted or uncontroverted and the public interest is threatened (see, ... ...