Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

140 A.D. 329

In re Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1910-10-21

<p>Attorney at law disciplined.</p> <p>Attorney at law disciplined by suspension from practice for one year for unprofessional conduct in unlawfully inducing another to evade service of a subpoena for which misdemeanor he was convicted and sentenced by a Federal cóurt, for making false statements in order to deceive the court into believing that certain books of a corporation could not be produced, and for refusing to testify before a grand jury as to the affairs of a corporation of which he was a director upon the claim that the matters related to a confidential communication with a client.</p> <p>The conviction of an attorney at law of a misdemeanor does not of itself work a disbarment as is the case where he is convicted of a felony.</p> <p>Laughlin, J., dissented in part, voting for disbarment.</p> <p>Proceeding to discipline an attorney.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1981

1 district ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1910-10-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Laughlin, J. (dissenting in part):

¶1On reading the evidence, I became convinced that the respondent is guilty of the crime of having willfully impeded the administration of justice, for which ho was duly indicted, convicted and sentenced in the Federal court, and also of the charge of having willfully deceived the Federal court and grand jury. Moreover, in his "testimony before the grand jury, on his own trial, on the trial of Arthur P. Heinze and on this hearing, I think that he has shown a reckless disregard of the truth.

¶2As I view the- evidence, he has clearly forfeited liis right to the office of attorney and counselor, and the nature of the charges, satisfactorily established, and his recklessness in testifying, merit extreme punishment and, in my opinion, the dignity of the court and the good of the profession require that he should he disbarred.

¶3However, since my associates do not view the evidence as I do, and since I cannot yield my convictions, for they have been confirmed by reflection, I have determined in deference to their views and to the decision about to be made, to withdraw my formal opinion setting forth and discussing the evidence upon which my convictions are founded, and to record my dissent with respect to the punishment and my vote for disbarment on this memorandum.

¶4Respondent suspended from practice for one year. Settle order on notice.

/140/ad/329 · .json · Public domain