 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONVICTION JUDICIARY LAW CRIMES ATTORNEY APPELLATE DIVISION GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE JUDGEMENT SANCTION DISCIPLINE DISBARMENT SUSPENSION IMPOSE GUILTY PLEA FELONY IMPOSING REVERSE PRACTICE LAW PURSUANT DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING DISTRICT RESPONDENT COMMENCEMENT REPORT COURT AUTHORITIES UNDERLYING MISCONDUCT INTERIM SUSPENSION SECOND DEPARTMENT |
IN THE MATTER OF R. EMMET DELANY, A DISBARRED ATTORNEY. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, RESPONDENT, R. EMMET DELANY, APPELLANT.
87 N.Y.2d 508, 663 N.E.2d 625, 640 N.Y.S.2d 469 (1996).
February 8, 1996
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
2 No. 6(1996 NY Int 12)
Decided February 8, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Paul R. Grand, for Appellant.
Forrest Strauss, for Respondent.
SMITH, J.:
May the Appellate Division impose a final sanction on an attorney who
has been convicted of serious crimes as defined by Judiciary Law
90(4)(d), even though a final judgment of conviction for those crimes
has not been rendered? We conclude that a final sanction may not be
imposed absent a judgment of conviction for a serious crime.
Consequently, we reverse the order of the Appellate Division which
imposed the final sanction of disbarment on appellant.
Appellant was admitted to the practice of law in New York State on
April 13, 1983. On September 2, 1992, appellant pled guilty to the
Federal crimes of tampering with a witness (18 USC § 1512), knowingly
attempting to evade and defeat income tax (26 USC § 7201), and mail
fraud (18 USC § 1341), in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Appellant has yet to be sentenced for
these crimes and will not be sentenced until his period of cooperation
with Federal authorities has ended.
After appellant's guilty plea, respondent Grievance Committee for the
Ninth Judicial District moved by order to show cause in the Appellate
Division to strike appellant's name from the roll of attorneys
pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), which provides for automatic
disbarment of an attorney convicted of a felony. Alternatively, the
Grievance Committee sought interim suspension of appellant from the
practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f), which provides
for such interim suspension upon the record of a conviction for a
serious crime. The Grievance Committee also sought authorization to
institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against appellant.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
