Isserman, In re
| Decision Date | 01 September 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. D18,D18 |
| Citation | 9 N.J. 316,88 A.2d 199 |
| Parties | In re ISSERMAN. , |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
The respondent has filed a motion for a rehearing of the disciplinary charges decided against him by this court.
This matter has been before the court for two full years. The respondent was afforded an opportunity to be heard in November, 1949, before the Essex County Ethics Committee. He did not appear personally but through counsel requested that the matter be continued because of the pendency of proceedings in the federal courts, and he offered in evidence certain documents showing the status of matters there. The committee, however, instead of granting a continuance reported the matter to this court for appropriate action, and as a result an order to show cause was issued as to why the respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined.
At the respondent's request the order to show cause, entered April 24, 1950 and returnable May 8, 1950, was continued pending the disposition of the proceedings in the federal courts. It was not until more than a year later, after the United States Court of Appeals had affirmed the respondent's convictions of contempt and the United States Supreme Court had denied certiorari, 341 U.S. 592, 71 S.Ct. 1010, 95 L.Ed. 1374, that this court issued a new order to show cause, returnable June 18, 1951. Prior to the return date the respondent filed a motion for a continuance on the ground that he had not had an opportunity to properly prepare his defense, pointing out that he had applied to the United States Supreme Court for a rehearing of his petition for certiorari. This court reserved decision on the motion pending the argument on the order to show cause.
In addition to the motion for a continuance the respondent filed an answer on the order to show cause together with a 20-page brief which concluded, 'The charges herein should be dismissed.' This plainly indicated, as did the respondent's entire brief, that he considered the matter ripe for decision without the taking of further evidence. At the oral argument the respondent's counsel took his full 45 minutes to argue the merits of the charges. While he reminded this court that his motion for a continuance was still pending and while he renewed his request that the hearing of the matter by this court be postponed, he neither asked for an opportunity to produce additional evidence nor suggested that the respondent had been denied the opportunity to do so. The sole request made of this court was that the argument on the order to show cause be continued until the federal proceedings should have been disposed of.
Following argument on the order to show cause and while the motion for a continuance and the order to show cause were still undisposed of, this court was advised by the respondent's counsel that the United States Supreme Court had granted a stay of the respondent's sentence pending the disposition of his motion for a rehearing on his petition for certification. To give the respondent every opportunity to defend himself against the charges of unprofessional and unethical conduct pending against him, this court granted his motion for a continuance until his application to the United States Supreme Court had been disposed of, 342 U.S. 858, 72 S.Ct. 84, in the meantime suspending the respondent from the practice of law.
Over eight months later, on March 10, 1952, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the respondent's six convictions for contempt, 72 S.Ct. 451, and we accordingly set down the long-pending disciplinary matter in this court for argument on March 17, 1952. At the argument counsel for the respondent, who again took his full 45 minutes, filed with the court and served on opposing counsel an amended and supplemental answer, which this court received without opposition despite the fact that our rules require all material to be used on oral arguments be made available to the court in advance of the oral argument. Counsel conceded that he had received a full hearing at the prior argument on June 18, 1951, but he contended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coruzzi, Matter of
...In re Mirabelli, 79 N.J. 597, 601-02, 401 A.2d 1090 (1979); In re Mischlich, 60 N.J. 590, 593, 292 A.2d 23 (1972); In re Isserman, 9 N.J. 316, 321, 88 A.2d 199 (1952), cert. den. sub nom. Isserman v. Ethics Committee, 345 U.S. 927, 73 S.Ct. 706, 97 L.Ed. 1357 (1953). We assume that the Legi......
-
Sacher v. Association of the Bar of City of New York
... ... 1, 72 S.Ct. 451, 96 L.Ed. 717, and in his suspension from membership in the District Court bar for two years.1 The New Jersey Supreme Court disbarred this other lawyer from the practice of law in that state on the basis of such contempt conviction. In re Isserman, 9 N.J. 269, 87 A.2d 903; Id., 9 N.J. 316, 88 A.2d 199. That action resulted in his disbarment from our bar. 345 U.S. 286, 73 S.Ct. 676, 97 L.Ed. 1013 ... The misconduct charged against Mr. Sacher occurred in a long drawn-out trial lasting from January 17, 1949, with ... ...
-
Mischlich, In re
...in accordance with established federal procedures. See In re Isserman, 9 N.J. 269, 277--78, 87 A.2d 903, rehearing denied, 9 N.J. 316, 321, 88 A.2d 199 (1952), cert. denied, Isserman v. Ethics Committee etc., 345 U.S. 927, 73 S.Ct. 706, 97 L.Ed. 1357 (1953), reinstatement granted, 35 N.J. 1......
-
Coruzzi, Matter of
...In re Mirabelli, 79 N.J. 597, 601-02, 401 A.2d 1090 (1979); In re Mischlich, 60 N.J. 590, 593, 292 A.2d 23 (1973); In re Isserman, 9 N.J. 316, 321, 88 A.2d 199 (1951), cert. den. sub nom., Isserman v. Ethics Committee, 345 U.S. 927, 73 S.Ct. 706, 97 L.Ed. 1357 (1953). But even were we persu......