Matter of New York County Lawyers’ Association v. Anonymous, 32 N.Y.2d 918 (1973)

A non-governmental organization with delegated investigatory powers is not authorized to conduct an unlimited and general inquisition into personal affairs without a basis for the inquiry, and individuals subject to such inquiries may assert a claim of harassment if the inquiry becomes unduly burdensome.

Summary

This case addresses the limits on the investigatory powers of a non-governmental organization, specifically the New York County Lawyers’ Association, concerning the unauthorized practice of law. The Court of Appeals held that while the Association has the power to investigate, that power is not unlimited. There must be authority, relevancy, and some basis for the inquisitorial action. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, allowing the investigation to proceed but emphasized that the witness has the right to seek remedy if the inquiry becomes unduly intrusive or burdensome. A bare showing is enough to initiate an inquiry but not enough to harass a witness.

Facts

The New York County Lawyers’ Association initiated an investigation into the potential unauthorized practice of law concerning pension and profit-sharing planning. The Association served a subpoena on an individual (Anonymous) to appear and produce documents related to the inquiry. The Association believed that unqualified persons were drafting legal instruments in connection with pension and profit-sharing schemes. The individual moved to quash the subpoena.

Procedural History

The individual moved to quash the subpoena. The Appellate Division upheld the subpoena, allowing the investigation to proceed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, emphasizing limitations on the investigatory power and the rights of the individual being investigated.

Issue(s)

Whether a non-governmental organization with delegated powers of inquiry, such as the New York County Lawyers’ Association, can conduct a broad investigation into an individual’s affairs without demonstrating a reasonable basis for believing that illegal practices are occurring.

Holding

No, because while the organization has the authority to initiate an inquiry with a bare showing of basis, this does not grant unlimited power. An individual can seek remedy if the inquiry becomes unduly protracted, intrusive, or burdensome.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that all inquiries must have authority, relevancy, and a basis. While a bare showing is enough to initiate, it is not enough to harass. The court emphasized that no agency of government, nor a non-governmental organization with delegated powers, may conduct an unlimited and general inquisition into the affairs of persons within its jurisdiction solely on the prospect of possible violations of law. The court acknowledged the Association’s need to investigate the potential unauthorized practice of law but cautioned against unduly intrusive or burdensome inquiries. The court stated, “If the inquiry is unduly protracted, unduly intrusive into the affairs of the witness without some showing of utility in its further prosecution, or by the breadth or intensity of the inquiry into the books and papers of the witness it has become unduly burdensome, the witness will not be without remedy.” The court also noted that the Association should show reasonable ground to believe that there was illegal practice of law in the area of pension and profit-sharing planning and that unqualified persons were doing the drafting.