In re Dondi, 63 N.Y.2d 331 (1984)

A Grievance Committee seeking to unseal criminal records in an attorney disciplinary matter must demonstrate a compelling need to the Appellate Division, and the resulting order must detail the papers considered for meaningful review.

Summary

This case addresses the balance between attorney disciplinary proceedings and the confidentiality of sealed criminal records under CPL 160.50. The New York Court of Appeals held that while the Appellate Division has the discretion to unseal such records, it can only do so upon a compelling showing by the Grievance Committee that the investigation cannot proceed without the records. Furthermore, the order permitting unsealing must specify the documents considered by the Appellate Division. Because the Grievance Committee improperly obtained sealed records in this case, and due to the protracted nature of the proceedings and the attorney’s previously unblemished record, the disciplinary complaint was dismissed.

Facts

An attorney, Dondi, was charged with bribing a police officer in 1974. The indictment was later superseded, and after a trial in 1977, he was acquitted. Following the acquittal, the records of the case were sealed under CPL 160.50. Prior to the acquittal, in 1975, the Grievance Committee filed a complaint against Dondi concerning the alleged bribery. The Grievance Committee then sought to unseal the records, first unsuccessfully in Supreme Court, then successfully, via letter, in the Appellate Division.

Procedural History

1. The Grievance Committee filed a complaint against Dondi in 1975.
2. Dondi was acquitted in 1977, and the records were sealed.
3. The Grievance Committee obtained the sealed records through a letter request to the Appellate Division.
4. Formal charges were filed against Dondi in the Appellate Division.
5. A referee found misconduct, and the Appellate Division confirmed this report, suspending Dondi.
6. The Court of Appeals granted Dondi’s motion for leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the Grievance Committee properly obtained the sealed records for use in its disciplinary investigation.
2. Whether the Appellate Division had the authority to order the unsealing of the records.
3. Whether the use of the sealed records tainted the disciplinary proceedings, requiring dismissal of the complaint.

Holding

1. No, because the Grievance Committee failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the records to the Appellate Division, and the order was improperly obtained via letter to the clerk.
2. Yes, in extraordinary circumstances, the Appellate Division has discretion, pursuant to its inherent authority, to permit the unsealing of criminal records, but only upon a compelling showing of necessity.
3. Yes, because the improper access to sealed records, combined with the length of the proceedings and Dondi’s prior unblemished record, prejudiced Dondi, warranting dismissal of the complaint.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while Grievance Committees do not have standing under CPL 160.50 as “law enforcement agencies” to seek unsealing orders, the Appellate Division has inherent authority over attorney discipline and court records. However, this authority can only be invoked when the Grievance Committee demonstrates a compelling necessity, supported by affirmation, that the investigation cannot proceed without the sealed records. The court emphasized that “[s]uch discretionary power may be invoked, however, only upon a compelling demonstration, by affirmation, that without an unsealing of criminal records, the ends of protecting the public through investigation and possible discipline of an attorney cannot be accomplished.”

In this case, the Grievance Committee’s letter to the clerk of the court, stating only that “further investigation is required,” fell far short of this standard. Moreover, the clerk’s letter, rather than a formal order, did not provide a basis for meaningful review. The court also found that the Grievance Committee was bound by its earlier sworn statement that the records were “essential” to the investigation. The Court stated, “Having elected to proceed on the basis that the files were essential, the Committee should be held to that characterization.” Despite the fact the referee didn’t use the sealed documents, the original tainting of the investigation was prejudicial.

Acknowledging the attorney’s right to due process, the Court balanced it with the need to protect the public. Considering the improper access to the records, the length of the proceedings, and Dondi’s previously unblemished record and cooperation, the court determined that dismissal was the appropriate remedy, as further proceedings would be unfair to Dondi.