Matter of Anonymous Attorney, 63 N.Y.2d 515 (1984)

An Appellate Division’s power to suspend an attorney under Judiciary Law § 90(2) requires a prior finding by the court that the attorney is guilty of professional misconduct, not merely a pending disciplinary review.

Summary

This case clarifies the scope of the Appellate Division’s authority to suspend attorneys pending disciplinary proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division acted prematurely when it suspended an attorney based on a disciplinary committee’s preliminary findings, before the court itself made a determination of guilt. The decision emphasizes that a judicial finding of misconduct is a prerequisite to suspending an attorney’s license to practice law. This safeguards due process and prevents suspensions based solely on unconfirmed allegations. The ruling ensures that attorneys have an opportunity to challenge findings before disciplinary measures are imposed.

Facts

An attorney faced complaints from a former client, leading to an appearance before the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. The committee filed charges against the attorney for improper handling of client funds and providing false testimony. The attorney denied the charges, and a hearing panel conducted extensive hearings. At the close of the hearings, the panel chair announced that the charges were sustained, issued an oral reprimand, and stated an intention to recommend disbarment.

Procedural History

1. A former client filed a complaint against the attorney.
2. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee filed charges.
3. A hearing panel conducted hearings and announced the charges were sustained, with a recommendation of disbarment.
4. Before formal findings were prepared or an application for disbarment was made, the Disciplinary Committee moved in the Appellate Division to suspend the attorney.
5. The Appellate Division granted the motion, suspending the attorney pending completion of the disciplinary matter.
6. The attorney appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the Appellate Division has the authority under Judiciary Law § 90(2) to suspend an attorney pending the determination of disciplinary charges by a Departmental Disciplinary Committee, before the court itself has made a finding of guilt regarding professional misconduct.

Holding

No, because a judicial finding of guilt of professional misconduct is required before the Appellate Division can suspend an attorney’s license to practice law under Judiciary Law § 90(2).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals emphasized that the Appellate Division’s power to suspend an attorney is contingent upon a finding by the court that the attorney “is guilty” of professional misconduct or other specified acts. The court stated, “A finding by the court that an attorney ‘is guilty’ of professional misconduct or of one of the other statutorily specified acts is a prerequisite to interference with the attorney’s right to practice his or her profession.” The court reasoned that the informal conclusion of wrongdoing by a disciplinary committee panel does not substitute for the judicial determination required by the statute. The court noted the normal procedure involves the court’s determination of guilt only after the panel’s findings are confirmed, allowing the attorney an opportunity to challenge the findings. The Court rejected the argument that a finding of misconduct could be presumed from the issuance of the suspension order, particularly given the explicit reference to the continuing pendency of the matter before the disciplinary committee. The Court stated that without an adjudication of guilt based on evidence and exhibits, the Appellate Division’s action was premature. The decision ensures that attorneys are not suspended based solely on preliminary findings but are afforded due process, including the right to challenge findings before disciplinary measures are imposed.