Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Attorneys and other professionals working in a partnership cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination to avoid revealing partnership information, the New York Court of Appeals held Tuesday. The court for the first time adopted Fifth Amendment jurisprudence by the U.S. Supreme Court and made clear that the state constitution affords attorneys and others in partnership relationships with no more of a shield against self-incrimination than the U.S. Constitution. It specifically adopted the Supreme Court’s 1974 holding in Bellis v. United States, 417 US 85, and declined to read Article I �6 of the state constitution more expansively than the Fifth Amendment. Matter of Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003, 60, involves a small Manhattan firm from which Attorney General Eliot Spitzer seeks information pertaining to an investigation into auto insurance fraud and the role of personal injury attorneys in perpetuating fraud. The firm was not identified in the decision and the briefs are sealed. The subpoena sought records on personal injury cases the firm has handled since January 1999, including financial records, retainer statements and records of payments to medical providers and their management or marketing companies. It also demanded a list of all present and former partners and associates. The firm moved to quash, relying in part on New York precedent making clear that a partnership is not a separate and distinct entity from its individual partners (see Williams v. Hartshorn, 296 NY 49 [1946]). On that reasoning, the firm contended, its individual partners have a Fifth Amendment or equivalent state constitutional protection that would permit them to withhold potentially incriminating information. But Tuesday, by a 7-0 vote, the Court of Appeals refused to interpret the state constitutional protection against self-incrimination beyond that recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bellis. Writing for the Court, Judge George Bundy Smith noted that while the Court has on several occasions interpreted the state Constitution more broadly than the federal Constitution, it is reluctant to do so when the language in the two constitutions is essentially the same. He said there is “no material textual difference between the relevant constitutional provisions” in the Fifth Amendment and Article I �6 that would warrant a departure from Bellis. “[W]e hereby adopt Bellis and hold that an individual partner of a law firm, whose firm was served with a subpoena duces tecum seeking the production of firm records, cannot rely on the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination” to withhold records, even if they might incriminate the partner personally, Smith wrote. He stressed that lower courts had already decided that the records at issue here were not protected under the attorney-client privilege. Smith said that under Bellis, the law firm in this case is a “collective entity” and that the attorneys cannot invoke what is essentially an individual right against self-incrimination. “It is not a family partnership or association; exists as an independent entity apart from its individual members; is a well structured, not informal, organization set up for conducting ongoing legal practice; and maintains a distinct set of organizational records,” Smith wrote. EFFECT ON FIRMS “I am profoundly disappointed the Court declined to extend broad constitutional protections to a partnership,” said Garden City, N.Y., attorney Kenneth J. Weinstein, who appeared for the small law firm served by the attorney general with a subpoena . “There is no intellectual or rational difference between an individual and a small partnership warranting a more restrictive constitutional standard,” he said. “I believe this presents serious issues for attorneys and other professionals intending to practice in a partnership. They must now understand that they leave their constitutional protections behind.” Christine Pritchard, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Spitzer’s “goal is to target and break up auto insurance fraud rings, with particular focus on the professionals that support these illegal activities. Today’s decision bolsters our authority to pursue these cases.” Deputy Attorney General Peter B. Pope argued for Spitzer.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.