Opinion ID: 2399906
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Attempt to Have S.E.C. Subpoenas Withdrawn

Text: The fourth count of the original Statement of Charges alleged that respondent attempted to induce John Mitchell to withdraw, or to secure the withdrawal of the S.E.C. subpoenas issued to I.C.C. and its officers. The Ethics Committee stated that this action was undertaken for the explicit purpose of hindering, delaying and influencing the investigation. After its hearing, the Committee found the charge to be supported factually and respondent guilty of a violation of DR 1-102(A) (3), (4), (5) and (6), and DR 9-101(C). See note 2 supra. Respondent contends, to the contrary, that he merely desired a postponement of the return dates of the subpoenas until after the 1972 national election, when the political overtones of the case would be less glaring. Regardless of whose interpretation is adopted, it is clear that respondent wanted Mitchell to take some action with regard to the subpoenas. This fact was acknowledged and discussed by Sears at the ethics hearing. Q. When you communicated with Mr. Mitchell, what was your intention that Mr. Mitchell would do to affect the request that you were making? A. [Sears] What was my intention that he would do? I don't know that I had a specific intention. I assumed that he would talk, probably talk with either Mr. Casey or somebody. Probably Mr. Casey. I don't know. I really don't know at this point whether I had a specific thought. I was talking to John Mitchell as a man who shared the same concern that I did as far as the President's campaign is concerned, and he was certainly in a position to discuss it with someone. I don't have any recollection of my either saying to him to talk to some specific person or thinking that he would, but I assume  and this is not recollection  I assume that I at that time assumed that he talked to Mr. Casey. There is proof that Vesco ordered Sears to have the subpoenas quashed or withdrawn. In view of all the foregoing, we conclude that the Ethics Committee adduced clear and convincing evidence in support of its charge that respondent's intent was to request that the subpoenas be quashed. We therefore sustain the Committee's finding in this regard.