Curry v. Hosley, 89 N.Y.2d 472 (1997)

The office of District Attorney in New York State requires the officeholder to be an attorney admitted to practice law due to the legal nature of the responsibilities entrusted to that office.

Summary

This case addressed whether a non-attorney could serve as a District Attorney in New York. The Court of Appeals held that the legal nature of the District Attorney’s duties necessitates that the individual be a lawyer admitted to practice. The decision emphasized the constitutional and statutory duties of District Attorneys, which include conducting prosecutions, advising grand juries, and applying for warrants. The court rejected the argument that a non-attorney District Attorney could delegate these responsibilities to hired attorneys, stating that such a delegation would constitute an impermissible transfer of fundamental responsibilities. The decision overruled a prior case that suggested a special exception for Hamilton County, where the office had historically been held by non-attorneys.

Facts

James Curry, the Republican Party candidate and incumbent District Attorney (an attorney), initiated a proceeding to remove Morrison Hosley, a non-attorney candidate, from the ballot for Hamilton County District Attorney. The office had been held by non-attorneys for over a century, ending in the 1960s. Hosley argued that if elected, he would appoint attorneys from neighboring counties to handle legal work.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Curry, removing Hosley from the ballot. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, allowing Hosley to remain on the ballot. The Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court’s judgment, effectively removing Hosley from the ballot.

Issue(s)

Whether New York law permits a person who is not an attorney to serve as the District Attorney of a county.

Holding

No, because the legal nature of the important public responsibilities entrusted to the District Attorneys of this State requires that such individuals be lawyers admitted to practice.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the Constitution uses the term “district attorney,” implying an attorney-at-law qualified to prosecute and defend legal actions. The District Attorney’s client is the people of the State of New York. The court emphasized the broad discretion granted to District Attorneys to investigate, initiate, and prosecute crimes, giving them significant control over individuals’ liberty and reputation. County Law § 700(1) mandates that District Attorneys conduct all prosecutions for crimes within their county. The District Attorney also serves as a legal advisor to the Grand Jury and makes applications for eavesdropping and video surveillance warrants.

The court rejected Hosley’s argument that he could delegate his legal work to appointed attorneys, stating that this would constitute an impermissible transfer of fundamental responsibilities. The court cited Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, which prohibits the wholesale transfer of public responsibility. Such delegation could also violate ethical guidelines that govern the professional conduct of attorneys by assisting a nonlawyer in the practice of law. County Law § 702(2) states that the assistant district attorney shall perform such duties pertaining to the office as may be directed by the district attorney. The Code of Professional Responsibility prohibits lawyers from helping nonlawyers in the practice of law (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 3-101 [22 NYCRR 1200.16]).

The court clarified its prior statement in People v. Carter, where it stated that neither the Constitution nor any statute requires that a District Attorney or an Assistant District Attorney be an admitted lawyer (77 NY2d, at 105). The court clarified that it did not consider the precise question presented here — namely, whether it is necessary for a prosecutor to have any training as a lawyer at all, or more particularly, whether training as a lawyer and admission to the Bar are necessary criteria for eligibility for the elected office of District Attorney.

The court overruled Matter of Drake, which had allowed a non-attorney to run for Hamilton County District Attorney, eliminating any special exception for that county.