Home/New York Court of Appeals/In re Thies

In re Thies

382 N.E.2d 1351, 45 N.Y.2d 865, 410 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2294
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 19, 1978
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 382 N.E.2d 1351 (In re Thies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Thies, 382 N.E.2d 1351, 45 N.Y.2d 865, 410 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2294 (N.Y. 1978).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

We decline the invitation to reconsider our decision of but a year ago in Matter of Chu (42 NY2d 490) in which we held that, under subdivision 4 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, conviction of a Federal felony works an automatic disbarment in New York State of a defendant attorney. We then held that it is immaterial that there is no felony analogue under our State statutes matching the Federal felony. As we then noted, this marked a significant departure from our prior holding in Matter of Donegan (282 NY 285).

The thrust, if not the particular application, of the expressions of concern by our dissenting brothers pertains to the statutory mandate that "[a]ny person being an attorney and counsellor-at-law, who shall be convicted of a felony, shall, upon such conviction, cease to be an attorney and counsellorat-law, or to be competent to practice law as such” (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 4). If, as they urge, consideration should be given to the gravity of the offense and to mitigating circumstances, on principle this would seem to be equally true with respect to convictions for New York felonies. Yet, as the dissenters recognize, the validity of the concept of automatic disbarment as applied to New York felonies has long been upheld.

In Chu, for the reasons there articulated we concluded "that conviction of an attorney for criminal conduct judged by the [867]*867Congress to be of such seriousness and so offensive to the community as to merit punishment as a felony is sufficient ground to invoke automatic disbarment. * * * we now perceive little or no reason for distinguishing between conviction of a Federal felony and conviction of a New York State felony as a predicate for professional discipline” (pp 493-494). Nothing has occurred in the intervening months to compel a different conclusion.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

In re Thies
42 A.D.3d 37 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In Re Drew v. Tidwell, Movant. Drew v. Tidwell, Movant-Appellant
295 F.3d 331 (Second Circuit, 2002)
In Re Tidwell
139 F. Supp. 2d 343 (W.D. New York, 2000)
In re Johnston
553 N.E.2d 566 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
MATTER OF GRAHAM v. Coughlin
531 N.E.2d 640 (New York Court of Appeals, 1988)
Graham v. Coughlin
135 A.D.2d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Cahn v. Joint Bar Ass'n Grievance Committee
420 N.E.2d 945 (New York Court of Appeals, 1981)
In Re Winthrop Drake Thies
662 F.2d 771 (D.C. Circuit, 1980)
In re Schiff
74 A.D.2d 161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
In re Hopfl
400 N.E.2d 292 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)
In re Horowitz
68 A.D.2d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Smith
68 A.D.2d 52 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Hersch
67 A.D.2d 569 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Feldshuh
67 A.D.2d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Tilker
67 A.D.2d 28 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Katz
67 A.D.2d 36 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re De Castanos
66 A.D.2d 640 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Spooner
66 A.D.2d 495 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Eisenberg
66 A.D.2d 497 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
In re Milchman
65 A.D.2d 244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
382 N.E.2d 1351, 45 N.Y.2d 865, 410 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-thies-ny-1978.