Spevack, In Matter of

• Decision Date: 06 January 1966
• Citation: 17 N.Y.2d 490,267 N.Y.S.2d 210
• Parties: , 214 N.E.2d 373 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 210

267 N.Y.S.2d 210

17 N.Y.2d 490, 214 N.E.2d 373

In the Matter of Samuel SPEVACK, an Attorney.

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

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 6, 1966.

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, and 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.

The Court of Appeals, 16 N.Y.2d 1048, 266 N.Y.S.2d 126, 213 N.E.2d 457, affirmed the order and denied motion for a stay.

Motion was made in the Court of Appeals to amend the remittitur.

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Appellant contended that his disbarment, based upon his refusal to produce any of the records specificied in the subpoena duces tecum, duly issued in a judicial inquiry into professional conduct, and based upon his prior refusal to answer any questions which might be asked relating thereto, violated his constitutional privilege against self incrimination and his constitutional right to due process of law. The Court of Appeals held there was no violation of any of appellant's constitutional rights.