55 Misc. 2d 540 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1967
Petitioner moves for an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum dated September 21, 1967, issued by the respondent committee to the petitioner and returnable before a subcommittee of the respondent Committee on Unlawful Practice of the Law, or, in the alternative, for an order modifying the subpoena duces tecum by striking out subparagraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 thereof.
As early as November 21, 1966, respondent initiated an investigation into the matter of the offering to the public of services in the designing and drafting of pension, profit-sharing, and employee benefit plans and programs. This was made known to the petitioner by letter of November 21, 1966. Petitioner concedes he is engaged in the business of pension and profit-sharing planning, all of which may include the practice of law in the giving of legal advice and formulation of legal documents. To assist in such investigation, the respondent applied for and secured the issuance of the subject subpoena duces tecum dated September 21, 1967, witnessed in the name of the Presiding Justice' of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court, First Department, and signed in behalf of the respondent and by the Clerk of the Appellate Division, First Department.
Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law, as amended, the Supreme Court has power and control not only over attorneys but over those assuming to practice
There is thus presented a fully-integrated authorization to exercise power and control over the practice of law, licensed and unlicensed, together with the implementation thereof both as to investigation and discipline by statute and rule, all within the powers conferred.
The power to initiate is with the respondent. Since it did initiate the proceeding herein, the matter is sub judice through its enforcing arm (see Matter of Association of Bar of City of N. Y., 222 App. Div. 580). It is sufficient that, in applying
With respect to the items of the subpoena the documents and writings to be produced are directly related to the matter under investigation. The time limitation of item 5 is the reasonable time limitation as indicated in items 1 through 4. Production may be made at the situs or at .stages of progress. If in a proper case it appears the books and papers are material and relevant and there is authority for its issuance, the subpoena is proper (Matter of Foster, 139 App. Div. 769).
The motion is denied.