Document: 360 U.S. 287 79 S.Ct. 1157 3 L.Ed.2d 1234 ANONYMOUS NOS. 6 AND 7, Appellants, v.Hon. Edward G. BAKER, as Justice of the Supreme Court State New York. No. 378. Argued March 25, 1959. Decided June 15, Mr. Raphael H. Weissman, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellants. Denis M. Hurley, appellee. HARLAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Appellants have ben convicted contempt refusal to answer pertinent questions put them witnesses summoned in a state judicial Inquiry into alleged improper practices at local bar. The sole issue before us is whether this conviction offended Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment Federal Constitution by reason fact that justice charge had required counsel retained appellants remain outside hearing room while they were being interrogated, even though he expressed his readiness suspend course questioning whenever wished consult with counsel. No claim made not fully represented proceedings themselves or such otherwise lacking due process. 2 On January 21, 1957, Appellate Division York, Second Department, acting pursuant § 90 Judiciary Law, 29 N.Y.Laws Ann. (McKinney 1948), and response petition Brooklyn Bar Association charging 'ambulance chasing' related unethical among segments Kings County Bar,1 ordered an investigation these conditions Additional Special Term Court, Arkwright presiding.2 licensed private detectives investigators, but attorneys, appeared witness subpoenas, accompanied presiding justice, upon authority appellate decision during same Inquiry, Anonymous v. Arkwright, 5 A.D.2d 790, 170 N.Y.S.2d 535, leave appeal denied, 4N.Y .2d 676, 173 1025, 149 N.E.2d 538, informed their would be allowed questioned, free him any time interrogation. Solely because limitation participation counsel, thereafter refused all manner them. Their contempt, carrying sentence 30 days' imprisonment, followed.3 affirmed, Application 6, 719, 176 227, York Appeals, finding 'no substantial constitutional question involved,' dismissed ensuing appeals. 4 N.Y.2d 1034, 1035, 177 687, 152 651. proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2),4 then appealed we postponed further consideration jurisdiction on merits. 358 891, 151, 119. Dealing first our jurisdiction, think it clear must dismissed. It predicated ground courts held valid 90, subd. 10 York's Law (see Note infra), said basis procedure here attacked. However, appears federal constitutionality was never 'drawn question' passed courts; Division, from whose Appeals denied appeal, simply relied earlier cases supra, S. 792, which turn appear involved adjudication. In circumstances hold lack 1257(2). Nevertheless, treating writ certiorari, grant writ. 2103, 2103. We An understanding nature necessary. traditional powers over admission, discipline, removal members bar placed law N.Y. 90. When apprised calling general inquiry usually appoints, here, sitting Term, make preliminary investigation. duties are purely investigatory advisory, culminating one more reports future action may based. words Cardozo, Chief Judge thus constitute 'preliminary inquisition, without adversary parties, neither ending decree nor establishing right * quasi administrative remedy whereby court given information move other acts *.' People ex rel. Karlin Culkin, 248 465, 479, 162 N.E. 487, 492, 60 A.L.R. 851. Customarily conducted private, reasons Cardozo explained case follows (248 pages 478—479, page 492): 7 'The argument pressed that, conceding power its hands weapon fair frame lawyer, however innocent f w rong, mercy tongue ignorance malice. Reputation plant tender growth, bloom, once lost, easily restored. mere summons report one's conduct, become slur reproach. Dangers indeed remedy. inquisition secret stages. This has been done department, least many instances, order hearing. second department directing inquiry. A within intendment section sittings public. closest analogue grand jury discovery crime.' 8 By analogy permitted attend examination called investigation, cf. McDonald Keeler, 99 463, 485, 615, 626—627,5 although discretion permit attendance where himself target See 791, 538. 9 These received legislative approval, evidenced quoted margin,6 Legislature's 1958 amend Civil Rights 1—242 so require interrogation character.7 Thus, what Division's private8 Term's exclusion procedural innovation particular judge case, expression established policy. now asked declare policy unconstitutional. 11 To do only necessitate ignoring weighty considerations support policy, limit area far beyond anything indicated Court's past 'right counsel' decisions Amendment. Although criminal proceedings, not, defendant unqualified trial Chandler Fretag, 348 3, 75 1, L.Ed. 4, extended stages proceedings. Cicenia LaGay, 357 504, 78 1297, 1523; also Crooker California, 433, 1287, 1448. Again, decided there proceeding, growing out 'one-man jury,' re Oliver, 333 257, 68 499, 500, 92 682,9 examined constitutionally entitled assistance interrogated. Groban, 352 330, 77 510, 376. 12 Groban upheld Ohio statute10 which, construed courts, authorized Fire Marshal exclude representing those testify causes fire. (352 332—333, 513): 13 legal duty speak testimony might provide charges against does mean whom sought cause cannot insist, matter right, can bodies. There no allow presence trying public interest determine Obviously situations evidence obtained possibly lay open charges. demand defense. Until protection privilege self-incrimination.' (Footnotes omitted.) 14 controlling requires rejection appellants' claims. As did self-incrimination, N.Y.Const., Art. I, freely exercised investigation,11 available Moreover, circumstance experienced judge, rather than official, throughout notwithstanding room, less tenable found wanting Groban. 15 seek escape arguing eye prosecution. contention rests informal 'off record' conversation assistant Inquiry's staff some four months actually examined. counsel's 'what wanted clients matter,' replies set forth margin.12 role judged actions statements subordinate member, evidently motivated nothing desire avoid plea self-incrimination blocked obtaining helpful information. record shows aware claims occurrence, caused explored repeatedly assured solely witnesses.13 That later faced charges, adds present claim. 332 333, 512—513. 16 final affirmed. 17 Affirmed. 18 BLACK, CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS BRENNAN concur, dissenting. 19 376, two years ago, fire marshal compelling persons suspected burning building about benefit Four dissented inquisitions violated upholds getting defendants negligence false pretenses 'tampering' statements.* I violates process compel testmon y incommunicado. Star Chamber judges who helped closed-door obnoxious country Bill guarantees trials And secretly compelled lose highly dangerous potentialities merely represents thereafter.' N.W. 492.) Nor justify holding adopted mantle secrecy barred solicitude reputation case. Doubtless defendants' lawyer capable perhaps much interested saving reputations sending jail. 20 naked, stark try public—or government official matter—can consistently groundwork crime, chambers, suspect cannot. upholding again retreats conceive highest duty, maintaining unimpaired rights liberties guaranteed Rights. Cf. Bartkus Illinois, 359 121, 684; Frank Maryland, 360, 804; Barenblatt United States, 109, 1081; Uphaus Wyman, 72, 1040. Here my exercise individual. therefore reverse conviction. alleged, things: 'That result following: unfair agreements retainer; maintenance lawyers system prompt accidents; congestion calendars unworthy intended brought trial; conception engaged practice relationship between attorney client commercial transaction plays unimportant part; impairment confidence Courts; delay administration justice.' Upon Arkwright's retirement December 31, 1958, designated Baker successor. Each appellant enlarged bail after serving days sentence. 'Final judgments decrees rendered could had, reviewed follows: '(2) drawn validity statute repugnant Constitution, treaties laws favor validity.' investigations kind deemed 'the conductive economical thorough ascertainment facts.' 335, 336, 515, 376 (concurring opinion). interim report, release stated 1957 issued 4,875 'request' 2,150 duces tecum records approximately 5,000 insurance companies. During period informally 2,500 persons, May 726 interrogated itself. 'Any rule contrary notwithstanding, papers, documents application person admission counsellor complaint, inquiry, relating conduct discipline shall sealed confidential. good shown, justices division having empowered, discretion, written order, divulged part documents. division, either notice attorneys affected thereby direct. furtherance purpose subdivision, rules deem Without regard foregoing, event sustained attorney, relation thereto records.' proposed bill added new 12—a, providing 'Right representation clle d certain inquiries investigations. Any Before investigating committee, directed tend involve subsequent quasi-criminal prosecution disciplinary professional misconduct, revocation suspension license engage profession, trade business, behalf (a) object argue briefly thereon; (b) confer privately advise requests conference; (c) procedures violate client's rights; (d) behalf, conclusion direct testimony, relevant subject reasonable limitations imposed officer investigation.' provided 'that, protecting provisions (Section Subdivision 10); facts, adduced, papers except confidential; none herein, until court; file setting findings recommendations.' See, p. supra; 13, infra. Page's Rev.Code, 1954, 3737.13. already memtioned, 5, stated: 'We scrupulous apprising purposes laid down witnesses, required, advised rights. 'As sworn have, unquestioned invoked including doctors. Faced roadblock, Counsel forced develop independent '* intend pussyfoot them, trap manner, come someone employ Gotham Claims Service (appellants' partnership) frequency, (in pending prospective actions), defendant's (insurance) carrier agencies, instance district attorney's office. disclosed tampered with, relative find if taken Service, taken, tampering employees direction attorney. 'I told Zangara counsel) interests Judicial primarily busiess cooperated felt take something done. prima facie plead Fifth Amendment, refer opinion, indicate done, considered time. giving asked. quite off record, asking amounted favor, very frank honest thanked indicating picture was. 'In fact, remember your Honor (the Inquiry) finally done.' when persisted recalcitrance despite court's directions answer, refusals contemptuous reappear thereafter. At time, heard why should contempt. each 'here witness, defendant, respondent. You understand am talking about. explain him.' next follow appellant: going ask wishes you, will give every opportunity you retire courtroom call (him) stand.' continued refusing answer. recalled corridor status defendants. punishment, challenged Despite judge's repeated 'witnesses' defendants, statement member staff, note makes conduct.

Category: 0