Case Name: In the Matter of J. Vincent Keogh, an Attorney, Respondent. Roy Richardson, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1972-07-13
Citations: 40 A.D.2d 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of J. Vincent Keogh, an Attorney, Respondent. Roy Richardson, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 541–542

Head Matter:
In the Matter of J. Vincent Keogh, an Attorney, Respondent. Roy Richardson, Petitioner.

Opinion:
In this disciplinary proceeding, petitioner moves to confirm the findings of fact set forth in the Referee's report and to impose such discipline as the court may deem appropriate and respondent moves to reject the Referee's report and to deny the relief requested in the petition. This proceeding arose out of a conviction of respondent in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, upon a jury verdict, of conspiracy to violate section 1503 of title 18 of the United States Code, which proscribes attempts to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice (United States v. Kahaner, 317 F. 2d 459, cert. den. 375 U. S. 836). Respondent's motion denied and petitioner's motion granted as follows: That part of the Referee's "fundamental findings" in which he states that "he [respondent] failed completely to establish that he was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted" is modified so as to read that "he failed to rebut the petitioner's prima facie proof (which stemmed from the Federal court judgment of conviction) and his guilt of the crime of which he was convicted was established by a fair preponderance of the evidence". Additionally, that part of the " fundamental findings " which alludes to the failure to establish " any perjuries by government witnesses thereat " is modified so as to add the words "which would warrant rejection of their testimony pertinent to the issues before us". As so modified, the Referee's " fundamental findings ", insofar as they apply to respondent, are confirmed. His "specific findings of fact" which follow his "fundamental findings" are also confirmed to the extent that they apply to the respondent and support the "fundamental findings". Under the circumstances, we conclude that respondent should be, and he is, disbarred and his name is ordered struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith. Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Munder, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.