Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneysubpoenaappealpartnershipcomplianceself-incriminationseizuregrand jury

attorneysubpoenamotionpartnershipcorporationself-incriminationappellantseizureattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

In re Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated June 24, 2003, 4 N.Y.3d 665, 830 N.E.2d 1118, 797 N.Y.S.2d 790, 2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 03582

Facts

On June 24, 2003, the Attorney General issued a subpoena duces tecum to a law firm on behalf of a Nassau County grand jury, seeking various financial records related to the firm's personal injury cases from January 1, 2001, to June 24, 2003. The law firm's partners moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it violated their rights against self-incrimination and was overly broad. The Nassau County Court denied their application, and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals.

On July 17, 2003, by order to show cause, appellants moved to quash the subpoena or modify its scope. Appellants argued that the subpoena violated: the individual partners' state and federal rights against compelled self-incrimination; the law firm's and individual partners' rights against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the attorney-client privilege.

Issue

Whether individual partners of a small law firm may invoke the privilege against compelled self-incrimination in response to a grand jury subpoena duces tecum seeking production of firm financial and payment records.

On the central issue before us, we agree with the motion court and Appellate Division that the individual partners cannot invoke the state or federal constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination.

Rule

The state constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination affords a partnership no greater right against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment; individual partners cannot invoke this privilege to avoid producing records pursuant to a grand jury subpoena.

The constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination is a personal one—“it cannot be utilized by or on behalf of any organization, such as a corporation” (United States v. White, 322 U.S. 694, 699, 64 S.Ct. 1248, 88 L.Ed. 1542 [1944]).

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the individual partners of the law firm could not claim the privilege against self-incrimination because the records sought were organizational records held in a representative capacity, not personal records. The court emphasized that the privilege is personal and does not extend to collective entities like partnerships. Furthermore, the court found that the subpoena was valid and did not violate the partners' rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Applying this rule to the present case, appellant law firm is a collective entity under Bellis. 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 an ongoing legal practice; and maintains a distinct set of organizational records.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the individual partners could not invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and that the subpoena was valid.

Accordingly, we hold that article I, § 6 affords a partnership no greater right against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the validity of the grand jury subpoena and ruled that the law firm's partners could not avoid compliance based on self-incrimination claims.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292, 72 USLW 4509, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5378, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7363, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 406

Morgano v. Smith, 110 Nev. 1025, 879 P.2d 735

In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 56 USLW 2177, 8 Fed.R.Serv.3d 897, 23 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 862

U.S. ex rel. Simon v. Murphy, 349 F.Supp. 818