Court Opinion

ID: 9766194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:36:49.686312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:20.308400
License: Public Domain

Sullivan, J.
(concurring and dissenting). I subscribe generally to the majority opinion except as to the extent of *203discipline to be imposed. The undisputed facts of this case establish that respondent was a knowing and active participant in an attempt to influence an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission’s (S.E.C.) investigation of financial manipulations involving International Controls Corporation (I.C.C.), a Robert Vesco-controlled enterprise. The investigation had disclosed matters which the S.E.C. staff considered “very serious,” including possible perjury on the part of Yesco. A meeting at the office of general counsel of the S.E.C. with I.C.C. personnel in connection with the investigation was characterized by Yesco as a “disaster.”1
The means employed was a $250,000 campaign contribution by Yesco of which $50,000 was a public contribution through'the New Jersey Einanee Committee, and $200,000 was a secret cash payment carried to Washington by respondent and Larry Richardson, the president of I.C.C., and delivered to Maurice Stans the Einanee Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
As soon as the money had been delivered, Richardson told Stans that “Mr. Yesco asked me to give you a message. He’d like to get some help.” Stans’ response was “that is John Mitchell’s department.”2 Respondent testified that he immediately protested Richardson’s statement, saying that there was no “quid pro quo” for the contribution. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that respondent kept a previously made appointment with Mitchell for that afternoon and reported to Mitchell that the contribution from Yesco had been delivered. Respondent also reminded Mitchell of a prior request by respondent for a meeting with Chairman Casey of the Securities and Exchange iCommission to discuss the Yesco investigation. Mitchell immediately telephoned Casey’s office and *204arranged a meeting between respondent and Casey for 4:00 or 4:30 that afternoon.
Respondent testified that at the meeting with Casey he mentioned complaints he had received from I.C.C. personnel about harassment by the S.E.C. staff and fears expressed that the S.E.C. might rubber-stamp the staff report without giving I.C.C. an opportunity “to counter some of the findings that might be made.”
Casey told respondent that the Commission was not in the habit of taking precipitous action and that there would be a thorough review of the staff report. However, he did not give respondent “any assurance” that I.C.C. would be allowed to appear before the ¡Commission itself.
Respondent disavows any improper motives on his part. He insists that his meeting with Mitchell and Casey on the same day the $200,000 cash contribution had been made was just a coincidence. However, the events set forth above, and particularly the timing and sequence thereof, clearly implicate respondent in an attempt to influence, by improper means, a S.E.C. fraud investigation. That it was done at almost the highest levels of the federal government, and in a sophisticated manner, does not change its essential nature. Moreover, when the S.E.C.,- having uncovered the transfer of the $200,000 in cash, issued subpoenas to Yesco and others calling upon them to testify as to where the money went, respondent, at Yesco’s urging and in response to Yesco’s threat “to blow the lid on the whole thing,” again sought Mitchell’s influence in an effort to have the subpoenas withdrawn.
Einally, when respondent was called before a grand jury which was investigating the whole matter, he gave testimony which, in many instances, was either false or misleading in an obvious attempt to hide the truth.
Despite respondent’s otherwise impeccable record, I cannot excuse his participation in an-attempt to “buy” favorable S.E.C. treatment for Yesco, or his subsequent efforts to frustrate or impede the S.E.C. and grand jury investigations of the secret payment. To put it plainly, respondent is *205guilty of deliberate attempts to corrupt the processes of government.
Attorneys are held to high standards of honor and moral decency in their professional conduct not only to protect the public but also to the end that public respect for the integrity of the administration of justice will never be doubted. If we are to maintain public confidence in that integrity we must be resolute in out insistence that attorneys maintain the standards we have established. I regard respondent’s conduct herein as so pernicious as to demonstrate his unfitness to continue in the practice of law. I vote to disbar.
For suspension for three years—Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Pashman and Schreiber and Judge Conford—4.
For disbarment—Justice Sullivan—1.
OEDEE
It is OEDEEED that HAEEY L. SEAES of Boonton be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and until further order of the Court, effective October 15, 1976; and it is further
OEDEEED that HAEEY L. SEAES be and hereby is restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension.

The S.E.C. investigation ultimately disclosed, widespread looting by Yesco of more than 224 million dollars of funds belonging to investors.

Mitchell had been Attorney General of the United States and was then Chairman of the Committee to Re-elect the President.