In re Hynda

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Hynda

183 A.2d 41, 38 N.J. 94, 1962 N.J. LEXIS 158

DecidedJune 29, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 183 A.2d 41 (In re Hynda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Hynda, 183 A.2d 41, 38 N.J. 94, 1962 N.J. LEXIS 158 (N.J. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

Eespondent, on a plea of nolo contendere, was convicted of willful failure to file a federal income-tax return in violation of section 7203, Internal Eevenue Code [95]*95of 1954, 26 United States Code. He was placed on probation for three years.

On the argument of the order to show cause before us, respondent submitted an affidavit asserting mitigating facts. It is difficult to evaluate ex parte presentations of that kind. Such data should be offered before the Ethics Committee as part of the proceedings before it, and there be subjected to appropriate examination. We appreciate that the practice in this regard has not been uniform and hence respondent is not chargeable with a breach of proper procedure. The matter will be referred to the Ethics Committee for a hearing on the alleged extenuating matters, the testimony and the Committee’s findings to be returned to us. Thereupon we will determine the measure of discipline to be imposed. Meanwhile, respondent is suspended from the practice of law until the further order of the court.

For suspension and remandment — Chief Justice Wein-teatjb, and Justices Jacobs, Peancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 7.

Opposed — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

Eespondent, on a plea of nolo contendere, was convicted of willful failure to file a federal income-tax return in violation of section 7203, Internal Eevenue Code [95]*95of 1954, 26 United States Code. He was placed on probation for three years.

On the argument of the order to show cause before us, respondent submitted an affidavit asserting mitigating facts. It is difficult to evaluate ex parte presentations of that kind. Such data should be offered before the Ethics Committee as part of the proceedings before it, and there be subjected to appropriate examination. We appreciate that the practice in this regard has not been uniform and hence respondent is not chargeable with a breach of proper procedure. The matter will be referred to the Ethics Committee for a hearing on the alleged extenuating matters, the testimony and the Committee’s findings to be returned to us. Thereupon we will determine the measure of discipline to be imposed. Meanwhile, respondent is suspended from the practice of law until the further order of the court.

For suspension and remandment — Chief Justice Wein-teatjb, and Justices Jacobs, Peancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 7.

Opposed — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 A.2d 41, 38 N.J. 94, 1962 N.J. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hynda-nj-1962.