Opposition Brief — Anonymous v. Ass'n of Bar of New York

New York County Clerk’s Index No. B259 BL

MICAAEL RODAK, JR..CLERK

In THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoser Term, 1975

me oa

AnonyMovs, an attorney admitted to practice

in the State of New York,

Petitioner,

—V,——

Tue AssociaTION OF THE Bar or Tre Crty or New York

and Joun G. Bonomi, Chief Vounsel, Committee on

Grievances of the Association of the Bar of the City of

New York,

Respondents.

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Joun G. Bonomi

Attorney for Respondents

36 West 44th Street

New York, New York 10036

(212) MU 2-0606

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented ...

Statement of the Case

ARGUMENT:

There Is No Basis for Granting the Writ —.............

ConcLusiIon

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoser Term, 1975

—~<-

AnonyMous, an attorney admitted to practice

in the State of New York,

Petitioner,

a

Tue AssociaTION OF THE Bar or THE Crty or New York

and Joun G. Bonomi, Chief Counsel, Committee on

Grievances of the Association of the Bar of the City of

New York,

Respondents.

te

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

.

Question Presented

Does the federal court abstention doctrine stated in

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., U.S. ——, 43 L. ed.2d 482

(1975) bar a federal civil rights action to enjoin prose-

cution of a pending, undecided state bar association disci-

plinary proceeding against an attorney, such a proceeding

being, under state law, a state judicial proceeding?

Statement of the Case

While the case is set forth in the opinion below,* the

basic facts here relevant should be briefly summarized

therefrom.

* Appendix to petition, 2a to 4a.

2

The Committee on Grievances of respondent, The Asso-

ciation of the Bar of the City of New York, acting under

the By-Laws of the Association, instituted a disciplinary

proceeding against petitioner by serving him with a charge

letter April 16, 1974, setting forth the charges against

him. Respondent John G. Bonomi, Esq., Chief Counsel of

the Committee, acted as attorney for the Committee. A

hearing was held before a hearing panel of the Committee

on May 7, 1974.

At the hearing, counsel for the Committee offered in

evidence against petitioner minutes of testimony given by

petitioner before a New York County Grand Jury under

a grant of transactional immunity. Petitioner objected to

the admission of the minutes on the ground that their

admission against him would violate his constitutional

rights.

The hearing panel overruled the objection and admitted

the minutes and adjourned to June 4, 1974 without having

made a decision on the merits.

On June 4, 1974, petitioner instituted his present action

in the United States District Court, obtaining a stay

which remained in effect until the action wy the United

States Court of Appeals, referred to below, on April 3, 1975.

On July 31, 1974, the District Court granted respondents’

motion to dismiss on the basis of Younger v. Harris, 401

U.S. 37 (1971) and this result was affirmed by the Court

of Appeals on April 3, 1975, on the basis of voluminous

authority including Younger and Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.,

— U.S. ——, 43 L. ed. 483, decided March 18, 1975.*

* The Court of Appeals’ opinion is set forth in full in petitioner's

appendix, la to 16a.

sie ETRE AY RIE IE I OO MEE LIER TEN VT ALOE, BM OO LB OE LIEN et

he fra)

ARGUMENT

There Is No Basis for Granting the Writ.

None of the situations enumerated in this Court’s Rule 19

exists tore and there is no special or important reason

for granting the writ of certiorari prayed for. The decision

below was correct.

The disciplining of attorneys in New York is a matter

of state interest, entrusted by the state to the Appellate

Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

Judiciary Law of New York, Section 90.2.

In carrying out its responsibilities under Section 90.2,

the Appellate Division entrusts the necessary investigatory

and prosecutorial functions to the Grievance Committee.

As Chief Judge Fuld said in Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.

2d 330, 331-2, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667, 668-9 (1969) :

“Petitions or complaints charging professional miscon-

duct of an attorney which, in the past, were presented

to the General Term of the Supreme Court are now

usually filed with the Grievance Committee of a bar

association. And, it has been observed, a proce>ding

before such a committee constitutes a ‘judicial pre-

In the investigation of such complaints and

in the conduct of such proceedings, then, the bar asso-

ciation’s Grievance Committee acts as a quasi-judicial

body and, as such, is an arm of the Appellate Division.”

,

ceeding.

See also Doe v. Rosenberry, 255 F.2d 118 (2nd Cir. 1958).

Thus, respondent Association’s Grievance Committee, in

its proceeding against petitioner, and its Chief Counsel,

4

respondent Bonomi, acted as an agency of the state court

in the enforcement of state discipline against petitioner,

and the proceeding is a state judicial proceeding.

Under these circumstances, the Court of Appeals cor-

rectly held that federal intervention is barred. Its decision

is not in conflict with any other circuit and conforms to

decisions in three other cireuits;* and it is supported by

the decisions of this Court. Huffman v. Pursue, Lid., ——

US. , 43 L. ed. 482 (1975) ; Geiger v. Jenkins, 401 U.S.

985 (1971), affirming 316 F. Supp. 370 (D.C. Ga. 1970);

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S, 37 (1971).

Paraphrasing this Court’s language in Huffman (48

L. ed. at 492), an offense to New York’s interest in the

disciplining of its attorneys is likely to be every bit as

great as it would be in a criminal proceeding; and a federal

injunction in this case would disrupt the New York in-

terests which underlie its efforts to protect the integrity

of its bar and to obtain compliance with its standards of

professional conduct.

Furthermore, there are no special circumstances here

ealling for the ignoring of the non-intervention rule. See

Huffman, 48 L. ed. at 496.

*See Lynch v. Snepp, 472 F.2d 769, 773 (4th Cir. 1973); cert.

denied, 415 U.S. 983 (1974); Palate v. MeAulije, 466 F.2d 1230,

1282-383 (5th Cir. 1972); Cousins v. Wigoda, 463 F.2d 603 (7th

Cir.), application for a stay denied, 409 U.S. 1201 (1972).

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Joun G. Bonomi

Attorneys for Respondents

36 West 44th Street

New York, New York 10036

(212) MU 2-0606

Saut FRrepBerc

Of Counsel

— ee ee er ber ee To

~ ene OSE OTR TN AE NPE RY EL TOP ii adil