Jump to content

Edit filter log

Details for log entry 37261962

21:54, 18 March 2024: Moosey98 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 867, performing the action "edit" on Spevack v. Klein. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Large creations by inexperienced user (examine | diff)

Changes made in edit

{{Infobox US Supreme Court case
| Litigants = Spevack v. Klein
| ArgueDate = November 7
| ArgueYear = 1966
| DecideDate = January 16
| DecideYear = 1967
| FullName = Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein
| Docket = 62
| USVol = 385
| USPage = 511
| Prior = 17 N.Y.2d 490, 214 N.E.2d 373, 16 N.Y.2d 1048, 213 N.E.2d 457, Matter of Spevack, 24 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)
| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62
| OpinionAnnouncement = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62
| Holding = The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Fifth Amendment]] applies to an attorney invoking it against a state through a state bar association, and its assertion cannot be grounds for [[disbarment]].
| Dissent = Harlan
| Concurrence = Fortas
| JoinDissent = Clark, Stewart
| Dissent2 = White
| LawsApplied = [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | V Amendment]], [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]]
| Plurality = Douglas
| JoinPlurality = Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas
| Overturned previous case = [[Cohen v. Hurley]], 366 U.S. 117 (1961)
}}'''Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein''', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385|385]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] 511 (1967) was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in which the court held in a [[Plurality decision|plurality]] decision that the [[Self-incrimination clause|Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] applied even to attorneys in a [[state bar association]] under investigation, and an attorney asserting that right may not be disbarred for invoking it. It was a very close case, being 5-4, with the majority only winning with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]] who wrote a special [[concurring opinion]] on the matter. This case directly overruled [[Cohen v. Hurley]], [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 366|366]] U.S. 117 (1961), a nearly identical case in which the Supreme Court had just recently upheld an attorney's disbarment for his refusal to testify or produce documents in regards to an investigation. This case has since spawned much debate, with some arguing this decision "signaled the decline of bar disciplinary enforcement". <ref name="ABA Journal">{{cite journal |last1=Franck |first1=Michael |title="The Myth of Spevack v. Klein" |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=October 1986 |volume=54 |issue=10 |pages=970-974 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724560 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref>

== Historical Context ==
Around 1965, attorney Samuel Spevack of the [[New York State Bar Association]] was under investigation and was served with a [[subpoena]] to produce various financial and business documents. Spevack denied, citing his Fifth Amendment right and that turning the documents over might incriminate him. With his refusal to comply, the state bar association charged him with professional misconduct, and was ordered disbarred by the [[New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department|Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Division]] to take effect on December 1, 1965.<ref>{{cite web |title=Order on Motion for Stay (24 A.D.2d 653) |date=1 December 1965|url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-7 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Solomon A. Klein throughout these proceedings was the named respondent, this was due to him having been the Chief Counsel to the Judiciary Inquiry on Professional Conduct of the New York State Supreme Court. <ref>{{cite web |title=Obituary of Solomon A. Klein, Lawyer, 82 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/28/obituaries/solomon-a-klein-lawyer-82.html |website=nytimes.com |access-date=18 March 2024 |date=28 August 1988}}</ref>

=== New York Court of Appeals ===
Spevack appealed the ruling to the [[New York Court of Appeals]] which heard arguments on November 23, 1965. The court made its decision on December 1, the same day Spevack was to be disbarred, and ultimately based on the recent ''Cohen''<ref name=Cohen></ref> decision, upheld the disbarment and held that no violation of rights had occurred.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Matter of Spevack, Opinion of the N.Y. Crt. of. App. |url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-2 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Its decision had rested on ''Cohen'' and that, <blockquote>"the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to a demand, not for oral testimony, but that an attorney produce records required by law to be kept by him" (citing ''Davis'' v. ''United States,'' 328 U.S. 582 and ''Shapiro'' v. ''United States,'' 335 U.S. 1).</blockquote>Judge [[Stanley H. Fuld]], who went on to become the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals in 1967, wrote a concurring memorandum in which he expressed disdain in this case, showing he disagreed with ''Cohen'' decision but was bound by it.<ref name=":0" />

== Supreme Court Decision ==
[[File:SCOTUS Justice Abe Fortas.jpeg|thumb|Justice Abe Fortas voted for the majority and wrote a separate concurring opinion in ''Spevack v. Klein''.]]
Spevack appealed once more to the Supreme Court, which granted [[Writ of Cert|certiorari]], and oral arguments took place on November 7, 1966 and decided on January 16, 1967. In a very close 5-4 decision the court, with a plurality and not a majority, ruled in favor of Spevack. The court reached its plurality with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]], who agreed with the general idea of attorneys having a Fifth Amendment right in this case but maintained that public employees did not enjoy that same right.

=== Majority Opinion ===
The majority opinion was written by Justice [[William O. Douglas]], and was joined by Justice [[Hugo Black]] , Justice [[Earl Warren]], and Justice [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan]].<ref name="SC Opinion">{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> All of these Justices voted for an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in the ''Cohen'' case. Their opinion rests on a strong interpretation of [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporation]] of the Fifth Amendment, saying,<blockquote>"it is in that tradition that we overrule ''Cohen v. Hurley.'' We find no room in the privilege against self-incrimination for classifications of people so as to deny it to some and extend it to others. Lawyers are not excepted from the words "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"; and we can imply no exception."</blockquote>The opinion strengthened the case of [[Malloy v. Hogan|''Malloy v. Hogan'']], 378 US 1 (1964) which incorporated the right against self-incrimination against the states. It argued the Appellate Division had relied on the ''Cohen'' case instead of ''Hogan'' because Spevack was a member of the bar and thus ''Cohen'' did not apply, an interpretation the majority did not agree with. In ''Hogan'', it was reinforced that no person should be punished for their silence by virtue of their Fifth Amendment right, protected and incorporated by the Fourteenth, and the majority determined that the threat of disbarment and its eventual execution was a violation of that precedent. They argued,<blockquote>"The threat of disbarment and the loss of professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion to make a lawyer relinquish the privilege."</blockquote>This case has allowed attorneys to enjoy greater protections within their businesses and livelihoods by being able to assert their Fifth Amendment right within investigations.

=== Fortas' Concurrence ===
Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote a concurring opinion<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fortas |first1=Abe |title=Concurring Opinion (Fortas) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> in this case, agreeing with the outcome but wishing for the plurality to specify that this case and ruling would not afford public employees a self-incrimination right if they were under investigation. He argues, <blockquote>"I agree that [''Cohen''], should be overruled. But I would distinguish between a lawyer's right to remain silent and that of a public employee who is asked questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, as distinguished from his beliefs or other matters that are not within the scope of the specific duties which he undertook faithfully to perform as part of his employment by the State."</blockquote>He in essence agreed with the majority due to the simple fact he believed, <blockquote>"a lawyer is not an employee of the State. He does not have the responsibility of an employee to account to the State for his actions, because he does not perform them as agent of the State. His responsibility to the State is to obey its laws and the rules of conduct that it has generally laid down as part of its licensing procedures."</blockquote>

=== Harlan's Dissent ===
The first dissent in this case was written by Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]], joined by Justice [[Tom C. Clark|Tom Clark]], and Justice [[Potter Stewart]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Dissenting Opinion (Harlan) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> These same Justices also voted against an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in ''Cohen''. Their argument rests on an idea that this decision would be a great loss to public trust, bar associations, and the legal profession at large as it will be,<blockquote>"frustrating to courts and bar associations throughout the country in their efforts to maintain high standards at the bar."</blockquote>They further argue that this decision would be devastating to the legal profession in the public eye, since attorneys and would-be applicants can claim Fifth Amendment protection to shield themselves from any proper investigation. This is put together by saying, <blockquote>"[This case] exposes this Court itself to the possible indignity that it may one day have to admit to its own bar such a lawyer unless it can somehow get at the truth of suspicions, the investigation of which the applicant has previously succeeded in blocking. For I can perceive no distinction between "admission" and "disbarment" in the rationale of what is now held."</blockquote>They further reason that even with the ''Hogan'' decision, the Court need not be so hasty in completely overturning ''Cohen'', and further that the plurality didn't have deep enough thought or consideration at the "true issue", that being,<blockquote>"whether petitioner's disbarment for his failure to provide information relevant to charges of misconduct in carrying on his law practice impermissibly vitiated the protection afforded by the privilege."</blockquote>They argue that the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment federally largely stems from either a historical standpoint or modern and current public interests or urgency, and thus its incorporation against the states need not deviate from that same interpretation. They argue that this case doesn't satisfy either prerequisite, and further continue to speak on the fact that States, through their bar associations, are given a large amount of leeway in what they can require for their professions. They point to three cases, saying,<blockquote>"The States may demand any qualifications which have "a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity," ''Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Black |first1=Hugo |title=Majority Opinion - Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/#tab-opinion-1941460 |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 353 U. S. 232, 353 U. S. 239, and may exclude any applicant who fails to satisfy them. In particular, a State may require evidence of good character, and may place the onus of its production upon the applicant. ''Konigsberg v. State Bar of California,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/36/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 36. Finally, a State may, without constitutional objection, require in the same fashion continuing evidence of professional and moral fitness as a condition of the retention of the right to practice. ''Cohen v. Hurley,''<ref name=Cohen>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/117/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 117. All this is in no way questioned by today's decision."</blockquote>

=== White's Dissent ===
Justice [[Byron White]] offered a separate dissenting opinion, instead choosing to rely on [[Garrity v. New Jersey]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 385 U.S. 493 (1967), a case they had ruled on in the same exact term as the case at hand. His argument is summed up by him saying, <blockquote>"Admittedly, however, in attempting to determine the present qualifications of an employee by consultation with the employee himself, the State may ask for information which, if given, would not only result in a discharge, but would be very useful evidence in a criminal proceeding. ''Garrity,'' in my view, protects against the latter possibility. Consequently, I see no reason for refusing to permit the State to pursue its other valid interest and to discharge an employee who refuses to cooperate in the State's effort to determine his qualifications for continued employment."<ref>{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Byron |title=Dissenting Opinion (White) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> </blockquote>

== Legal Public Perception ==
Since the ruling there has been much debate on this topic, with many of the legal community speaking out against the ruling.

One outspoken critic of the ruling was the widely known Michael Franck, a former director of the [[State Bar of Michigan]] and leading figure within the [[American Bar Association]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award |url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/initiatives_awards/awards/aboutthemichaelfranckaward1/ |website=americanbar.org |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref>. Franck wrote ''"The Myth of Spevack v. Klein"'' as part of the American Bar Association's Journal just a year after the decision was handed down. The scathing article was written largely from the perspective of someone involved greatly from within a bar association, mainly talking about how public perception of the legal profession would fall following the ruling. He wrote, <blockquote>"If, as the Court has held, the furnishing of an attorney is an essential part of the administration of justice for which the state is responsible, it would seem to follow that the state is at least as interested in the integrity of the attorneys it licenses as in the integrity of its employees" </blockquote>There has however been some opinions to show that the ruling wasn't completely wrong, with specifically one article arguing that ''Spevack'' doesn't wish to regard a bar disciplinary hearing as criminal, which is generally the only context in which the Fifth Amendment may be invoked. One article written by President of the [[New York City Bar Association]] [[Russell D. Niles]] and former Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals [[Judith Kaye]] somewhat defends the reasoning of the ruling, saying, <blockquote>"Spevack suggests to some that the Court would now regard a disciplinary proceeding as criminal and not, as long accepted, civil...The Court is only saying that it regards a disciplinary proceeding as an extremely serious matter which, in its result, may be more like a criminal conviction than like a civil judgment. A lawyer being disciplined must therefore be adequately protected; he must have due process of law. This is not to say that the essential nature of the proceeding must be changed from civil to criminal; grievance procedures do in fact include the highest safeguards."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaye |first1=Judith |last2=Niles |first2=Russell |title=Spevack v. Klein: Milestone or Millstone in Bar Discipline? |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=December 1967 |volume=53 |issue=12 |pages=1121-1126 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724238 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref></blockquote>

== References ==

Action parameters

VariableValue
Edit count of the user (user_editcount)
23
Name of the user account (user_name)
'Moosey98'
Age of the user account (user_age)
4515264
Groups (including implicit) the user is in (user_groups)
[ 0 => '*', 1 => 'user', 2 => 'autoconfirmed' ]
Rights that the user has (user_rights)
[ 0 => 'createaccount', 1 => 'read', 2 => 'edit', 3 => 'createtalk', 4 => 'writeapi', 5 => 'viewmyprivateinfo', 6 => 'editmyprivateinfo', 7 => 'editmyoptions', 8 => 'abusefilter-log-detail', 9 => 'urlshortener-create-url', 10 => 'centralauth-merge', 11 => 'abusefilter-view', 12 => 'abusefilter-log', 13 => 'vipsscaler-test', 14 => 'collectionsaveasuserpage', 15 => 'reupload-own', 16 => 'move-rootuserpages', 17 => 'createpage', 18 => 'minoredit', 19 => 'editmyusercss', 20 => 'editmyuserjson', 21 => 'editmyuserjs', 22 => 'sendemail', 23 => 'applychangetags', 24 => 'viewmywatchlist', 25 => 'editmywatchlist', 26 => 'spamblacklistlog', 27 => 'mwoauthmanagemygrants', 28 => 'reupload', 29 => 'upload', 30 => 'move', 31 => 'autoconfirmed', 32 => 'editsemiprotected', 33 => 'skipcaptcha', 34 => 'ipinfo', 35 => 'ipinfo-view-basic', 36 => 'transcode-reset', 37 => 'transcode-status', 38 => 'createpagemainns', 39 => 'movestable', 40 => 'autoreview' ]
Whether or not a user is editing through the mobile interface (user_mobile)
false
Whether the user is editing from mobile app (user_app)
false
Page ID (page_id)
0
Page namespace (page_namespace)
0
Page title without namespace (page_title)
'Spevack v. Klein'
Full page title (page_prefixedtitle)
'Spevack v. Klein'
Edit protection level of the page (page_restrictions_edit)
[]
Last ten users to contribute to the page (page_recent_contributors)
[]
Page age in seconds (page_age)
0
Action (action)
'edit'
Edit summary/reason (summary)
'Created page'
Old content model (old_content_model)
''
New content model (new_content_model)
'wikitext'
Old page wikitext, before the edit (old_wikitext)
''
New page wikitext, after the edit (new_wikitext)
'{{Infobox US Supreme Court case | Litigants = Spevack v. Klein | ArgueDate = November 7 | ArgueYear = 1966 | DecideDate = January 16 | DecideYear = 1967 | FullName = Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein | Docket = 62 | USVol = 385 | USPage = 511 | Prior = 17 N.Y.2d 490, 214 N.E.2d 373, 16 N.Y.2d 1048, 213 N.E.2d 457, Matter of Spevack, 24 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965) | OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62 | OpinionAnnouncement = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62 | Holding = The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Fifth Amendment]] applies to an attorney invoking it against a state through a state bar association, and its assertion cannot be grounds for [[disbarment]]. | Dissent = Harlan | Concurrence = Fortas | JoinDissent = Clark, Stewart | Dissent2 = White | LawsApplied = [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | V Amendment]], [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]] | Plurality = Douglas | JoinPlurality = Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas | Overturned previous case = [[Cohen v. Hurley]], 366 U.S. 117 (1961) }}'''Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein''', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385|385]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] 511 (1967) was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in which the court held in a [[Plurality decision|plurality]] decision that the [[Self-incrimination clause|Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] applied even to attorneys in a [[state bar association]] under investigation, and an attorney asserting that right may not be disbarred for invoking it. It was a very close case, being 5-4, with the majority only winning with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]] who wrote a special [[concurring opinion]] on the matter. This case directly overruled [[Cohen v. Hurley]], [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 366|366]] U.S. 117 (1961), a nearly identical case in which the Supreme Court had just recently upheld an attorney's disbarment for his refusal to testify or produce documents in regards to an investigation. This case has since spawned much debate, with some arguing this decision "signaled the decline of bar disciplinary enforcement". <ref name="ABA Journal">{{cite journal |last1=Franck |first1=Michael |title="The Myth of Spevack v. Klein" |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=October 1986 |volume=54 |issue=10 |pages=970-974 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724560 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> == Historical Context == Around 1965, attorney Samuel Spevack of the [[New York State Bar Association]] was under investigation and was served with a [[subpoena]] to produce various financial and business documents. Spevack denied, citing his Fifth Amendment right and that turning the documents over might incriminate him. With his refusal to comply, the state bar association charged him with professional misconduct, and was ordered disbarred by the [[New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department|Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Division]] to take effect on December 1, 1965.<ref>{{cite web |title=Order on Motion for Stay (24 A.D.2d 653) |date=1 December 1965|url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-7 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Solomon A. Klein throughout these proceedings was the named respondent, this was due to him having been the Chief Counsel to the Judiciary Inquiry on Professional Conduct of the New York State Supreme Court. <ref>{{cite web |title=Obituary of Solomon A. Klein, Lawyer, 82 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/28/obituaries/solomon-a-klein-lawyer-82.html |website=nytimes.com |access-date=18 March 2024 |date=28 August 1988}}</ref> === New York Court of Appeals === Spevack appealed the ruling to the [[New York Court of Appeals]] which heard arguments on November 23, 1965. The court made its decision on December 1, the same day Spevack was to be disbarred, and ultimately based on the recent ''Cohen''<ref name=Cohen></ref> decision, upheld the disbarment and held that no violation of rights had occurred.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Matter of Spevack, Opinion of the N.Y. Crt. of. App. |url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-2 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Its decision had rested on ''Cohen'' and that, <blockquote>"the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to a demand, not for oral testimony, but that an attorney produce records required by law to be kept by him" (citing ''Davis'' v. ''United States,'' 328 U.S. 582 and ''Shapiro'' v. ''United States,'' 335 U.S. 1).</blockquote>Judge [[Stanley H. Fuld]], who went on to become the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals in 1967, wrote a concurring memorandum in which he expressed disdain in this case, showing he disagreed with ''Cohen'' decision but was bound by it.<ref name=":0" /> == Supreme Court Decision == [[File:SCOTUS Justice Abe Fortas.jpeg|thumb|Justice Abe Fortas voted for the majority and wrote a separate concurring opinion in ''Spevack v. Klein''.]] Spevack appealed once more to the Supreme Court, which granted [[Writ of Cert|certiorari]], and oral arguments took place on November 7, 1966 and decided on January 16, 1967. In a very close 5-4 decision the court, with a plurality and not a majority, ruled in favor of Spevack. The court reached its plurality with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]], who agreed with the general idea of attorneys having a Fifth Amendment right in this case but maintained that public employees did not enjoy that same right. === Majority Opinion === The majority opinion was written by Justice [[William O. Douglas]], and was joined by Justice [[Hugo Black]] , Justice [[Earl Warren]], and Justice [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan]].<ref name="SC Opinion">{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> All of these Justices voted for an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in the ''Cohen'' case. Their opinion rests on a strong interpretation of [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporation]] of the Fifth Amendment, saying,<blockquote>"it is in that tradition that we overrule ''Cohen v. Hurley.'' We find no room in the privilege against self-incrimination for classifications of people so as to deny it to some and extend it to others. Lawyers are not excepted from the words "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"; and we can imply no exception."</blockquote>The opinion strengthened the case of [[Malloy v. Hogan|''Malloy v. Hogan'']], 378 US 1 (1964) which incorporated the right against self-incrimination against the states. It argued the Appellate Division had relied on the ''Cohen'' case instead of ''Hogan'' because Spevack was a member of the bar and thus ''Cohen'' did not apply, an interpretation the majority did not agree with. In ''Hogan'', it was reinforced that no person should be punished for their silence by virtue of their Fifth Amendment right, protected and incorporated by the Fourteenth, and the majority determined that the threat of disbarment and its eventual execution was a violation of that precedent. They argued,<blockquote>"The threat of disbarment and the loss of professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion to make a lawyer relinquish the privilege."</blockquote>This case has allowed attorneys to enjoy greater protections within their businesses and livelihoods by being able to assert their Fifth Amendment right within investigations. === Fortas' Concurrence === Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote a concurring opinion<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fortas |first1=Abe |title=Concurring Opinion (Fortas) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> in this case, agreeing with the outcome but wishing for the plurality to specify that this case and ruling would not afford public employees a self-incrimination right if they were under investigation. He argues, <blockquote>"I agree that [''Cohen''], should be overruled. But I would distinguish between a lawyer's right to remain silent and that of a public employee who is asked questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, as distinguished from his beliefs or other matters that are not within the scope of the specific duties which he undertook faithfully to perform as part of his employment by the State."</blockquote>He in essence agreed with the majority due to the simple fact he believed, <blockquote>"a lawyer is not an employee of the State. He does not have the responsibility of an employee to account to the State for his actions, because he does not perform them as agent of the State. His responsibility to the State is to obey its laws and the rules of conduct that it has generally laid down as part of its licensing procedures."</blockquote> === Harlan's Dissent === The first dissent in this case was written by Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]], joined by Justice [[Tom C. Clark|Tom Clark]], and Justice [[Potter Stewart]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Dissenting Opinion (Harlan) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> These same Justices also voted against an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in ''Cohen''. Their argument rests on an idea that this decision would be a great loss to public trust, bar associations, and the legal profession at large as it will be,<blockquote>"frustrating to courts and bar associations throughout the country in their efforts to maintain high standards at the bar."</blockquote>They further argue that this decision would be devastating to the legal profession in the public eye, since attorneys and would-be applicants can claim Fifth Amendment protection to shield themselves from any proper investigation. This is put together by saying, <blockquote>"[This case] exposes this Court itself to the possible indignity that it may one day have to admit to its own bar such a lawyer unless it can somehow get at the truth of suspicions, the investigation of which the applicant has previously succeeded in blocking. For I can perceive no distinction between "admission" and "disbarment" in the rationale of what is now held."</blockquote>They further reason that even with the ''Hogan'' decision, the Court need not be so hasty in completely overturning ''Cohen'', and further that the plurality didn't have deep enough thought or consideration at the "true issue", that being,<blockquote>"whether petitioner's disbarment for his failure to provide information relevant to charges of misconduct in carrying on his law practice impermissibly vitiated the protection afforded by the privilege."</blockquote>They argue that the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment federally largely stems from either a historical standpoint or modern and current public interests or urgency, and thus its incorporation against the states need not deviate from that same interpretation. They argue that this case doesn't satisfy either prerequisite, and further continue to speak on the fact that States, through their bar associations, are given a large amount of leeway in what they can require for their professions. They point to three cases, saying,<blockquote>"The States may demand any qualifications which have "a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity," ''Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Black |first1=Hugo |title=Majority Opinion - Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/#tab-opinion-1941460 |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 353 U. S. 232, 353 U. S. 239, and may exclude any applicant who fails to satisfy them. In particular, a State may require evidence of good character, and may place the onus of its production upon the applicant. ''Konigsberg v. State Bar of California,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/36/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 36. Finally, a State may, without constitutional objection, require in the same fashion continuing evidence of professional and moral fitness as a condition of the retention of the right to practice. ''Cohen v. Hurley,''<ref name=Cohen>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/117/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 117. All this is in no way questioned by today's decision."</blockquote> === White's Dissent === Justice [[Byron White]] offered a separate dissenting opinion, instead choosing to rely on [[Garrity v. New Jersey]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 385 U.S. 493 (1967), a case they had ruled on in the same exact term as the case at hand. His argument is summed up by him saying, <blockquote>"Admittedly, however, in attempting to determine the present qualifications of an employee by consultation with the employee himself, the State may ask for information which, if given, would not only result in a discharge, but would be very useful evidence in a criminal proceeding. ''Garrity,'' in my view, protects against the latter possibility. Consequently, I see no reason for refusing to permit the State to pursue its other valid interest and to discharge an employee who refuses to cooperate in the State's effort to determine his qualifications for continued employment."<ref>{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Byron |title=Dissenting Opinion (White) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> </blockquote> == Legal Public Perception == Since the ruling there has been much debate on this topic, with many of the legal community speaking out against the ruling. One outspoken critic of the ruling was the widely known Michael Franck, a former director of the [[State Bar of Michigan]] and leading figure within the [[American Bar Association]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award |url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/initiatives_awards/awards/aboutthemichaelfranckaward1/ |website=americanbar.org |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref>. Franck wrote ''"The Myth of Spevack v. Klein"'' as part of the American Bar Association's Journal just a year after the decision was handed down. The scathing article was written largely from the perspective of someone involved greatly from within a bar association, mainly talking about how public perception of the legal profession would fall following the ruling. He wrote, <blockquote>"If, as the Court has held, the furnishing of an attorney is an essential part of the administration of justice for which the state is responsible, it would seem to follow that the state is at least as interested in the integrity of the attorneys it licenses as in the integrity of its employees" </blockquote>There has however been some opinions to show that the ruling wasn't completely wrong, with specifically one article arguing that ''Spevack'' doesn't wish to regard a bar disciplinary hearing as criminal, which is generally the only context in which the Fifth Amendment may be invoked. One article written by President of the [[New York City Bar Association]] [[Russell D. Niles]] and former Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals [[Judith Kaye]] somewhat defends the reasoning of the ruling, saying, <blockquote>"Spevack suggests to some that the Court would now regard a disciplinary proceeding as criminal and not, as long accepted, civil...The Court is only saying that it regards a disciplinary proceeding as an extremely serious matter which, in its result, may be more like a criminal conviction than like a civil judgment. A lawyer being disciplined must therefore be adequately protected; he must have due process of law. This is not to say that the essential nature of the proceeding must be changed from civil to criminal; grievance procedures do in fact include the highest safeguards."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaye |first1=Judith |last2=Niles |first2=Russell |title=Spevack v. Klein: Milestone or Millstone in Bar Discipline? |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=December 1967 |volume=53 |issue=12 |pages=1121-1126 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724238 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref></blockquote> == References =='
Unified diff of changes made by edit (edit_diff)
'@@ -1,0 +1,52 @@ +{{Infobox US Supreme Court case +| Litigants = Spevack v. Klein +| ArgueDate = November 7 +| ArgueYear = 1966 +| DecideDate = January 16 +| DecideYear = 1967 +| FullName = Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein +| Docket = 62 +| USVol = 385 +| USPage = 511 +| Prior = 17 N.Y.2d 490, 214 N.E.2d 373, 16 N.Y.2d 1048, 213 N.E.2d 457, Matter of Spevack, 24 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965) +| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62 +| OpinionAnnouncement = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62 +| Holding = The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Fifth Amendment]] applies to an attorney invoking it against a state through a state bar association, and its assertion cannot be grounds for [[disbarment]]. +| Dissent = Harlan +| Concurrence = Fortas +| JoinDissent = Clark, Stewart +| Dissent2 = White +| LawsApplied = [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | V Amendment]], [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]] +| Plurality = Douglas +| JoinPlurality = Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas +| Overturned previous case = [[Cohen v. Hurley]], 366 U.S. 117 (1961) +}}'''Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein''', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385|385]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] 511 (1967) was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in which the court held in a [[Plurality decision|plurality]] decision that the [[Self-incrimination clause|Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] applied even to attorneys in a [[state bar association]] under investigation, and an attorney asserting that right may not be disbarred for invoking it. It was a very close case, being 5-4, with the majority only winning with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]] who wrote a special [[concurring opinion]] on the matter. This case directly overruled [[Cohen v. Hurley]], [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 366|366]] U.S. 117 (1961), a nearly identical case in which the Supreme Court had just recently upheld an attorney's disbarment for his refusal to testify or produce documents in regards to an investigation. This case has since spawned much debate, with some arguing this decision "signaled the decline of bar disciplinary enforcement". <ref name="ABA Journal">{{cite journal |last1=Franck |first1=Michael |title="The Myth of Spevack v. Klein" |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=October 1986 |volume=54 |issue=10 |pages=970-974 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724560 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> + +== Historical Context == +Around 1965, attorney Samuel Spevack of the [[New York State Bar Association]] was under investigation and was served with a [[subpoena]] to produce various financial and business documents. Spevack denied, citing his Fifth Amendment right and that turning the documents over might incriminate him. With his refusal to comply, the state bar association charged him with professional misconduct, and was ordered disbarred by the [[New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department|Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Division]] to take effect on December 1, 1965.<ref>{{cite web |title=Order on Motion for Stay (24 A.D.2d 653) |date=1 December 1965|url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-7 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Solomon A. Klein throughout these proceedings was the named respondent, this was due to him having been the Chief Counsel to the Judiciary Inquiry on Professional Conduct of the New York State Supreme Court. <ref>{{cite web |title=Obituary of Solomon A. Klein, Lawyer, 82 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/28/obituaries/solomon-a-klein-lawyer-82.html |website=nytimes.com |access-date=18 March 2024 |date=28 August 1988}}</ref> + +=== New York Court of Appeals === +Spevack appealed the ruling to the [[New York Court of Appeals]] which heard arguments on November 23, 1965. The court made its decision on December 1, the same day Spevack was to be disbarred, and ultimately based on the recent ''Cohen''<ref name=Cohen></ref> decision, upheld the disbarment and held that no violation of rights had occurred.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Matter of Spevack, Opinion of the N.Y. Crt. of. App. |url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-2 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Its decision had rested on ''Cohen'' and that, <blockquote>"the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to a demand, not for oral testimony, but that an attorney produce records required by law to be kept by him" (citing ''Davis'' v. ''United States,'' 328 U.S. 582 and ''Shapiro'' v. ''United States,'' 335 U.S. 1).</blockquote>Judge [[Stanley H. Fuld]], who went on to become the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals in 1967, wrote a concurring memorandum in which he expressed disdain in this case, showing he disagreed with ''Cohen'' decision but was bound by it.<ref name=":0" /> + +== Supreme Court Decision == +[[File:SCOTUS Justice Abe Fortas.jpeg|thumb|Justice Abe Fortas voted for the majority and wrote a separate concurring opinion in ''Spevack v. Klein''.]] +Spevack appealed once more to the Supreme Court, which granted [[Writ of Cert|certiorari]], and oral arguments took place on November 7, 1966 and decided on January 16, 1967. In a very close 5-4 decision the court, with a plurality and not a majority, ruled in favor of Spevack. The court reached its plurality with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]], who agreed with the general idea of attorneys having a Fifth Amendment right in this case but maintained that public employees did not enjoy that same right. + +=== Majority Opinion === +The majority opinion was written by Justice [[William O. Douglas]], and was joined by Justice [[Hugo Black]] , Justice [[Earl Warren]], and Justice [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan]].<ref name="SC Opinion">{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> All of these Justices voted for an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in the ''Cohen'' case. Their opinion rests on a strong interpretation of [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporation]] of the Fifth Amendment, saying,<blockquote>"it is in that tradition that we overrule ''Cohen v. Hurley.'' We find no room in the privilege against self-incrimination for classifications of people so as to deny it to some and extend it to others. Lawyers are not excepted from the words "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"; and we can imply no exception."</blockquote>The opinion strengthened the case of [[Malloy v. Hogan|''Malloy v. Hogan'']], 378 US 1 (1964) which incorporated the right against self-incrimination against the states. It argued the Appellate Division had relied on the ''Cohen'' case instead of ''Hogan'' because Spevack was a member of the bar and thus ''Cohen'' did not apply, an interpretation the majority did not agree with. In ''Hogan'', it was reinforced that no person should be punished for their silence by virtue of their Fifth Amendment right, protected and incorporated by the Fourteenth, and the majority determined that the threat of disbarment and its eventual execution was a violation of that precedent. They argued,<blockquote>"The threat of disbarment and the loss of professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion to make a lawyer relinquish the privilege."</blockquote>This case has allowed attorneys to enjoy greater protections within their businesses and livelihoods by being able to assert their Fifth Amendment right within investigations. + +=== Fortas' Concurrence === +Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote a concurring opinion<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fortas |first1=Abe |title=Concurring Opinion (Fortas) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> in this case, agreeing with the outcome but wishing for the plurality to specify that this case and ruling would not afford public employees a self-incrimination right if they were under investigation. He argues, <blockquote>"I agree that [''Cohen''], should be overruled. But I would distinguish between a lawyer's right to remain silent and that of a public employee who is asked questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, as distinguished from his beliefs or other matters that are not within the scope of the specific duties which he undertook faithfully to perform as part of his employment by the State."</blockquote>He in essence agreed with the majority due to the simple fact he believed, <blockquote>"a lawyer is not an employee of the State. He does not have the responsibility of an employee to account to the State for his actions, because he does not perform them as agent of the State. His responsibility to the State is to obey its laws and the rules of conduct that it has generally laid down as part of its licensing procedures."</blockquote> + +=== Harlan's Dissent === +The first dissent in this case was written by Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]], joined by Justice [[Tom C. Clark|Tom Clark]], and Justice [[Potter Stewart]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Dissenting Opinion (Harlan) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> These same Justices also voted against an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in ''Cohen''. Their argument rests on an idea that this decision would be a great loss to public trust, bar associations, and the legal profession at large as it will be,<blockquote>"frustrating to courts and bar associations throughout the country in their efforts to maintain high standards at the bar."</blockquote>They further argue that this decision would be devastating to the legal profession in the public eye, since attorneys and would-be applicants can claim Fifth Amendment protection to shield themselves from any proper investigation. This is put together by saying, <blockquote>"[This case] exposes this Court itself to the possible indignity that it may one day have to admit to its own bar such a lawyer unless it can somehow get at the truth of suspicions, the investigation of which the applicant has previously succeeded in blocking. For I can perceive no distinction between "admission" and "disbarment" in the rationale of what is now held."</blockquote>They further reason that even with the ''Hogan'' decision, the Court need not be so hasty in completely overturning ''Cohen'', and further that the plurality didn't have deep enough thought or consideration at the "true issue", that being,<blockquote>"whether petitioner's disbarment for his failure to provide information relevant to charges of misconduct in carrying on his law practice impermissibly vitiated the protection afforded by the privilege."</blockquote>They argue that the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment federally largely stems from either a historical standpoint or modern and current public interests or urgency, and thus its incorporation against the states need not deviate from that same interpretation. They argue that this case doesn't satisfy either prerequisite, and further continue to speak on the fact that States, through their bar associations, are given a large amount of leeway in what they can require for their professions. They point to three cases, saying,<blockquote>"The States may demand any qualifications which have "a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity," ''Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Black |first1=Hugo |title=Majority Opinion - Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/#tab-opinion-1941460 |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 353 U. S. 232, 353 U. S. 239, and may exclude any applicant who fails to satisfy them. In particular, a State may require evidence of good character, and may place the onus of its production upon the applicant. ''Konigsberg v. State Bar of California,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/36/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 36. Finally, a State may, without constitutional objection, require in the same fashion continuing evidence of professional and moral fitness as a condition of the retention of the right to practice. ''Cohen v. Hurley,''<ref name=Cohen>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/117/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 117. All this is in no way questioned by today's decision."</blockquote> + +=== White's Dissent === +Justice [[Byron White]] offered a separate dissenting opinion, instead choosing to rely on [[Garrity v. New Jersey]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 385 U.S. 493 (1967), a case they had ruled on in the same exact term as the case at hand. His argument is summed up by him saying, <blockquote>"Admittedly, however, in attempting to determine the present qualifications of an employee by consultation with the employee himself, the State may ask for information which, if given, would not only result in a discharge, but would be very useful evidence in a criminal proceeding. ''Garrity,'' in my view, protects against the latter possibility. Consequently, I see no reason for refusing to permit the State to pursue its other valid interest and to discharge an employee who refuses to cooperate in the State's effort to determine his qualifications for continued employment."<ref>{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Byron |title=Dissenting Opinion (White) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> </blockquote> + +== Legal Public Perception == +Since the ruling there has been much debate on this topic, with many of the legal community speaking out against the ruling. + +One outspoken critic of the ruling was the widely known Michael Franck, a former director of the [[State Bar of Michigan]] and leading figure within the [[American Bar Association]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award |url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/initiatives_awards/awards/aboutthemichaelfranckaward1/ |website=americanbar.org |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref>. Franck wrote ''"The Myth of Spevack v. Klein"'' as part of the American Bar Association's Journal just a year after the decision was handed down. The scathing article was written largely from the perspective of someone involved greatly from within a bar association, mainly talking about how public perception of the legal profession would fall following the ruling. He wrote, <blockquote>"If, as the Court has held, the furnishing of an attorney is an essential part of the administration of justice for which the state is responsible, it would seem to follow that the state is at least as interested in the integrity of the attorneys it licenses as in the integrity of its employees" </blockquote>There has however been some opinions to show that the ruling wasn't completely wrong, with specifically one article arguing that ''Spevack'' doesn't wish to regard a bar disciplinary hearing as criminal, which is generally the only context in which the Fifth Amendment may be invoked. One article written by President of the [[New York City Bar Association]] [[Russell D. Niles]] and former Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals [[Judith Kaye]] somewhat defends the reasoning of the ruling, saying, <blockquote>"Spevack suggests to some that the Court would now regard a disciplinary proceeding as criminal and not, as long accepted, civil...The Court is only saying that it regards a disciplinary proceeding as an extremely serious matter which, in its result, may be more like a criminal conviction than like a civil judgment. A lawyer being disciplined must therefore be adequately protected; he must have due process of law. This is not to say that the essential nature of the proceeding must be changed from civil to criminal; grievance procedures do in fact include the highest safeguards."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaye |first1=Judith |last2=Niles |first2=Russell |title=Spevack v. Klein: Milestone or Millstone in Bar Discipline? |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=December 1967 |volume=53 |issue=12 |pages=1121-1126 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724238 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref></blockquote> + +== References == '
New page size (new_size)
17467
Old page size (old_size)
0
Size change in edit (edit_delta)
17467
Lines added in edit (added_lines)
[ 0 => '{{Infobox US Supreme Court case', 1 => '| Litigants = Spevack v. Klein', 2 => '| ArgueDate = November 7', 3 => '| ArgueYear = 1966', 4 => '| DecideDate = January 16', 5 => '| DecideYear = 1967', 6 => '| FullName = Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein', 7 => '| Docket = 62', 8 => '| USVol = 385', 9 => '| USPage = 511', 10 => '| Prior = 17 N.Y.2d 490, 214 N.E.2d 373, 16 N.Y.2d 1048, 213 N.E.2d 457, Matter of Spevack, 24 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)', 11 => '| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62', 12 => '| OpinionAnnouncement = https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62', 13 => '| Holding = The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | Fifth Amendment]] applies to an attorney invoking it against a state through a state bar association, and its assertion cannot be grounds for [[disbarment]].', 14 => '| Dissent = Harlan', 15 => '| Concurrence = Fortas', 16 => '| JoinDissent = Clark, Stewart', 17 => '| Dissent2 = White', 18 => '| LawsApplied = [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution | V Amendment]], [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Self-incrimination | Self-incrimination Clause]]', 19 => '| Plurality = Douglas', 20 => '| JoinPlurality = Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas', 21 => '| Overturned previous case = [[Cohen v. Hurley]], 366 U.S. 117 (1961)', 22 => '}}'''Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein''', [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385|385]] [[United States Reports|U.S.]] 511 (1967) was a [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in which the court held in a [[Plurality decision|plurality]] decision that the [[Self-incrimination clause|Self-incrimination Clause]] of the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] applied even to attorneys in a [[state bar association]] under investigation, and an attorney asserting that right may not be disbarred for invoking it. It was a very close case, being 5-4, with the majority only winning with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]] who wrote a special [[concurring opinion]] on the matter. This case directly overruled [[Cohen v. Hurley]], [[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 366|366]] U.S. 117 (1961), a nearly identical case in which the Supreme Court had just recently upheld an attorney's disbarment for his refusal to testify or produce documents in regards to an investigation. This case has since spawned much debate, with some arguing this decision "signaled the decline of bar disciplinary enforcement". <ref name="ABA Journal">{{cite journal |last1=Franck |first1=Michael |title="The Myth of Spevack v. Klein" |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=October 1986 |volume=54 |issue=10 |pages=970-974 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724560 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref>', 23 => '', 24 => '== Historical Context ==', 25 => 'Around 1965, attorney Samuel Spevack of the [[New York State Bar Association]] was under investigation and was served with a [[subpoena]] to produce various financial and business documents. Spevack denied, citing his Fifth Amendment right and that turning the documents over might incriminate him. With his refusal to comply, the state bar association charged him with professional misconduct, and was ordered disbarred by the [[New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department|Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Division]] to take effect on December 1, 1965.<ref>{{cite web |title=Order on Motion for Stay (24 A.D.2d 653) |date=1 December 1965|url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-7 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Solomon A. Klein throughout these proceedings was the named respondent, this was due to him having been the Chief Counsel to the Judiciary Inquiry on Professional Conduct of the New York State Supreme Court. <ref>{{cite web |title=Obituary of Solomon A. Klein, Lawyer, 82 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/28/obituaries/solomon-a-klein-lawyer-82.html |website=nytimes.com |access-date=18 March 2024 |date=28 August 1988}}</ref>', 26 => '', 27 => '=== New York Court of Appeals ===', 28 => 'Spevack appealed the ruling to the [[New York Court of Appeals]] which heard arguments on November 23, 1965. The court made its decision on December 1, the same day Spevack was to be disbarred, and ultimately based on the recent ''Cohen''<ref name=Cohen></ref> decision, upheld the disbarment and held that no violation of rights had occurred.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Matter of Spevack, Opinion of the N.Y. Crt. of. App. |url=https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-2 |website=casetext.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> Its decision had rested on ''Cohen'' and that, <blockquote>"the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to a demand, not for oral testimony, but that an attorney produce records required by law to be kept by him" (citing ''Davis'' v. ''United States,'' 328 U.S. 582 and ''Shapiro'' v. ''United States,'' 335 U.S. 1).</blockquote>Judge [[Stanley H. Fuld]], who went on to become the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals in 1967, wrote a concurring memorandum in which he expressed disdain in this case, showing he disagreed with ''Cohen'' decision but was bound by it.<ref name=":0" />', 29 => '', 30 => '== Supreme Court Decision ==', 31 => '[[File:SCOTUS Justice Abe Fortas.jpeg|thumb|Justice Abe Fortas voted for the majority and wrote a separate concurring opinion in ''Spevack v. Klein''.]]', 32 => 'Spevack appealed once more to the Supreme Court, which granted [[Writ of Cert|certiorari]], and oral arguments took place on November 7, 1966 and decided on January 16, 1967. In a very close 5-4 decision the court, with a plurality and not a majority, ruled in favor of Spevack. The court reached its plurality with the vote of Justice [[Abe Fortas]], who agreed with the general idea of attorneys having a Fifth Amendment right in this case but maintained that public employees did not enjoy that same right. ', 33 => '', 34 => '=== Majority Opinion ===', 35 => 'The majority opinion was written by Justice [[William O. Douglas]], and was joined by Justice [[Hugo Black]] , Justice [[Earl Warren]], and Justice [[William J. Brennan Jr.|William Brennan]].<ref name="SC Opinion">{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> All of these Justices voted for an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in the ''Cohen'' case. Their opinion rests on a strong interpretation of [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporation]] of the Fifth Amendment, saying,<blockquote>"it is in that tradition that we overrule ''Cohen v. Hurley.'' We find no room in the privilege against self-incrimination for classifications of people so as to deny it to some and extend it to others. Lawyers are not excepted from the words "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"; and we can imply no exception."</blockquote>The opinion strengthened the case of [[Malloy v. Hogan|''Malloy v. Hogan'']], 378 US 1 (1964) which incorporated the right against self-incrimination against the states. It argued the Appellate Division had relied on the ''Cohen'' case instead of ''Hogan'' because Spevack was a member of the bar and thus ''Cohen'' did not apply, an interpretation the majority did not agree with. In ''Hogan'', it was reinforced that no person should be punished for their silence by virtue of their Fifth Amendment right, protected and incorporated by the Fourteenth, and the majority determined that the threat of disbarment and its eventual execution was a violation of that precedent. They argued,<blockquote>"The threat of disbarment and the loss of professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion to make a lawyer relinquish the privilege."</blockquote>This case has allowed attorneys to enjoy greater protections within their businesses and livelihoods by being able to assert their Fifth Amendment right within investigations.', 36 => '', 37 => '=== Fortas' Concurrence ===', 38 => 'Justice [[Abe Fortas]] wrote a concurring opinion<ref>{{cite web |last1=Fortas |first1=Abe |title=Concurring Opinion (Fortas) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> in this case, agreeing with the outcome but wishing for the plurality to specify that this case and ruling would not afford public employees a self-incrimination right if they were under investigation. He argues, <blockquote>"I agree that [''Cohen''], should be overruled. But I would distinguish between a lawyer's right to remain silent and that of a public employee who is asked questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, as distinguished from his beliefs or other matters that are not within the scope of the specific duties which he undertook faithfully to perform as part of his employment by the State."</blockquote>He in essence agreed with the majority due to the simple fact he believed, <blockquote>"a lawyer is not an employee of the State. He does not have the responsibility of an employee to account to the State for his actions, because he does not perform them as agent of the State. His responsibility to the State is to obey its laws and the rules of conduct that it has generally laid down as part of its licensing procedures."</blockquote>', 39 => '', 40 => '=== Harlan's Dissent ===', 41 => 'The first dissent in this case was written by Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]], joined by Justice [[Tom C. Clark|Tom Clark]], and Justice [[Potter Stewart]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Dissenting Opinion (Harlan) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> These same Justices also voted against an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in ''Cohen''. Their argument rests on an idea that this decision would be a great loss to public trust, bar associations, and the legal profession at large as it will be,<blockquote>"frustrating to courts and bar associations throughout the country in their efforts to maintain high standards at the bar."</blockquote>They further argue that this decision would be devastating to the legal profession in the public eye, since attorneys and would-be applicants can claim Fifth Amendment protection to shield themselves from any proper investigation. This is put together by saying, <blockquote>"[This case] exposes this Court itself to the possible indignity that it may one day have to admit to its own bar such a lawyer unless it can somehow get at the truth of suspicions, the investigation of which the applicant has previously succeeded in blocking. For I can perceive no distinction between "admission" and "disbarment" in the rationale of what is now held."</blockquote>They further reason that even with the ''Hogan'' decision, the Court need not be so hasty in completely overturning ''Cohen'', and further that the plurality didn't have deep enough thought or consideration at the "true issue", that being,<blockquote>"whether petitioner's disbarment for his failure to provide information relevant to charges of misconduct in carrying on his law practice impermissibly vitiated the protection afforded by the privilege."</blockquote>They argue that the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment federally largely stems from either a historical standpoint or modern and current public interests or urgency, and thus its incorporation against the states need not deviate from that same interpretation. They argue that this case doesn't satisfy either prerequisite, and further continue to speak on the fact that States, through their bar associations, are given a large amount of leeway in what they can require for their professions. They point to three cases, saying,<blockquote>"The States may demand any qualifications which have "a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity," ''Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Black |first1=Hugo |title=Majority Opinion - Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/#tab-opinion-1941460 |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 353 U. S. 232, 353 U. S. 239, and may exclude any applicant who fails to satisfy them. In particular, a State may require evidence of good character, and may place the onus of its production upon the applicant. ''Konigsberg v. State Bar of California,''<ref>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/36/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 36. Finally, a State may, without constitutional objection, require in the same fashion continuing evidence of professional and moral fitness as a condition of the retention of the right to practice. ''Cohen v. Hurley,''<ref name=Cohen>{{cite web |last1=Harlan II |first1=John |title=Majority Opinion - Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/117/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 366 U. S. 117. All this is in no way questioned by today's decision."</blockquote>', 42 => '', 43 => '=== White's Dissent ===', 44 => 'Justice [[Byron White]] offered a separate dissenting opinion, instead choosing to rely on [[Garrity v. New Jersey]],<ref>{{cite web |last1=Douglas |first1=William |title=Majority Opinion - Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> 385 U.S. 493 (1967), a case they had ruled on in the same exact term as the case at hand. His argument is summed up by him saying, <blockquote>"Admittedly, however, in attempting to determine the present qualifications of an employee by consultation with the employee himself, the State may ask for information which, if given, would not only result in a discharge, but would be very useful evidence in a criminal proceeding. ''Garrity,'' in my view, protects against the latter possibility. Consequently, I see no reason for refusing to permit the State to pursue its other valid interest and to discharge an employee who refuses to cooperate in the State's effort to determine his qualifications for continued employment."<ref>{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Byron |title=Dissenting Opinion (White) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/ |website=supreme.justia.com |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref> </blockquote>', 45 => '', 46 => '== Legal Public Perception ==', 47 => 'Since the ruling there has been much debate on this topic, with many of the legal community speaking out against the ruling. ', 48 => '', 49 => 'One outspoken critic of the ruling was the widely known Michael Franck, a former director of the [[State Bar of Michigan]] and leading figure within the [[American Bar Association]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award |url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/initiatives_awards/awards/aboutthemichaelfranckaward1/ |website=americanbar.org |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref>. Franck wrote ''"The Myth of Spevack v. Klein"'' as part of the American Bar Association's Journal just a year after the decision was handed down. The scathing article was written largely from the perspective of someone involved greatly from within a bar association, mainly talking about how public perception of the legal profession would fall following the ruling. He wrote, <blockquote>"If, as the Court has held, the furnishing of an attorney is an essential part of the administration of justice for which the state is responsible, it would seem to follow that the state is at least as interested in the integrity of the attorneys it licenses as in the integrity of its employees" </blockquote>There has however been some opinions to show that the ruling wasn't completely wrong, with specifically one article arguing that ''Spevack'' doesn't wish to regard a bar disciplinary hearing as criminal, which is generally the only context in which the Fifth Amendment may be invoked. One article written by President of the [[New York City Bar Association]] [[Russell D. Niles]] and former Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals [[Judith Kaye]] somewhat defends the reasoning of the ruling, saying, <blockquote>"Spevack suggests to some that the Court would now regard a disciplinary proceeding as criminal and not, as long accepted, civil...The Court is only saying that it regards a disciplinary proceeding as an extremely serious matter which, in its result, may be more like a criminal conviction than like a civil judgment. A lawyer being disciplined must therefore be adequately protected; he must have due process of law. This is not to say that the essential nature of the proceeding must be changed from civil to criminal; grievance procedures do in fact include the highest safeguards."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaye |first1=Judith |last2=Niles |first2=Russell |title=Spevack v. Klein: Milestone or Millstone in Bar Discipline? |journal=American Bar Association Journal |date=December 1967 |volume=53 |issue=12 |pages=1121-1126 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724238 |access-date=18 March 2024}}</ref></blockquote>', 50 => '', 51 => '== References ==' ]
Lines removed in edit (removed_lines)
[]
Parsed HTML source of the new revision (new_html)
'<div class="mw-content-ltr mw-parser-output" lang="en" dir="ltr"><div class="shortdescription nomobile noexcerpt noprint searchaux" style="display:none">1967 United States Supreme Court case</div><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1066479718">.mw-parser-output .infobox-subbox{padding:0;border:none;margin:-3px;width:auto;min-width:100%;font-size:100%;clear:none;float:none;background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .infobox-3cols-child{margin:auto}.mw-parser-output .infobox .navbar{font-size:100%}body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-header,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-subheader,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-above,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-title,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-image,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-full-data,body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .infobox-below{text-align:center}</style><table class="infobox scotus" style="line-height: 1.4em"><tbody><tr><th colspan="2" class="infobox-above fn" style="background-color: #99c0ff; padding: 0.2em; line-height: 1.4em; font-size:125%; font-style: italic">Spevack v. Klein</th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="infobox-image"><span typeof="mw:File"><span title="Seal of the United States Supreme Court"><img alt="" src="/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg/100px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png" decoding="async" width="100" height="100" class="mw-file-element" srcset="/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg/150px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png 1.5x, /upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg/200px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.png 2x" data-file-width="720" data-file-height="720" /></span></span><div class="infobox-caption" style="padding-top: 0.5em; font-weight: bold"><a href="/enwiki/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court of the United States</a></div></td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" class="infobox-header" style="background-color: #99c0ff; white-space:nowrap">Argued November 7, 1966<br />Decided January 16, 1967</th></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Full case name</th><td class="infobox-data"><i>Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein</i></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Docket no.</th><td class="infobox-data"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/62.html">62</a></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Citations</th><td class="infobox-data">385 <a href="/enwiki/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/us/385/511/case.html">511</a> (<i><a href="/enwiki/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_385" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385">more</a></i>)<div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Argument</th><td class="infobox-data"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62">Oral argument</a></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Opinion announcement</th><td class="infobox-data"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/62">Opinion announcement</a></td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" class="infobox-header" style="background-color: #99c0ff; white-space:nowrap">Case history</th></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Prior</th><td class="infobox-data">17 N.Y.2d 490, 214 N.E.2d 373, 16 N.Y.2d 1048, 213 N.E.2d 457, Matter of Spevack, 24 A.D.2d 653 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965)</td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" class="infobox-header" style="background-color: #99c0ff; white-space:nowrap">Holding</th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="infobox-full-data">The <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution"> Self-incrimination Clause</a> of the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution"> Fifth Amendment</a> applies to an attorney invoking it against a state through a state bar association, and its assertion cannot be grounds for <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Disbarment" title="Disbarment">disbarment</a>.</td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" class="infobox-header" style="background-color: #99c0ff; white-space:nowrap">Court membership</th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="infobox-full-data"><dl style="margin:0; padding:0.1em 0.5em; text-align:center; line-height:1.3em;"> <dt style="margin:0;">Chief Justice</dt> <dd style="margin:0 0 0.3em;"><a href="/enwiki/wiki/Earl_Warren" title="Earl Warren">Earl Warren</a> </dd> <dt style="margin:0;">Associate Justices</dt> <dd style="margin:0;"><a href="/enwiki/wiki/Hugo_Black" title="Hugo Black">Hugo Black</a>&#160;<b>&#183;</b>&#32; <a href="/enwiki/wiki/William_O._Douglas" title="William O. Douglas">William O. Douglas</a><br /><a href="/enwiki/wiki/Tom_C._Clark" title="Tom C. Clark">Tom C. Clark</a>&#160;<b>&#183;</b>&#32; <a href="/enwiki/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_(born_1899)" class="mw-redirect" title="John Marshall Harlan (born 1899)">John M. Harlan II</a><br /><a href="/enwiki/wiki/William_J._Brennan_Jr." title="William J. Brennan Jr.">William J. Brennan Jr.</a>&#160;<b>&#183;</b>&#32; <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Potter_Stewart" title="Potter Stewart">Potter Stewart</a><br /><a href="/enwiki/wiki/Byron_White" title="Byron White">Byron White</a>&#160;<b>&#183;</b>&#32; <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Abe_Fortas" title="Abe Fortas">Abe Fortas</a> </dd></dl></td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" class="infobox-header" style="background-color: #99c0ff; white-space:nowrap">Case opinions</th></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Plurality</th><td class="infobox-data">Douglas, joined by Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas</td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Concurrence</th><td class="infobox-data">Fortas</td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Dissent</th><td class="infobox-data">Harlan, joined by Clark, Stewart</td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="infobox-label">Dissent</th><td class="infobox-data">White</td></tr><tr><th colspan="2" class="infobox-header" style="background-color: #99c0ff; white-space:nowrap">Laws applied</th></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="infobox-full-data"><a href="/enwiki/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution"> V Amendment</a>, <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Self-incrimination" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution"> Self-incrimination Clause</a></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="infobox-full-data"><div style="background-color: green; color: white; font-weight: bold">This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings</div></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="infobox-full-data"><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cohen_v._Hurley&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Cohen v. Hurley (page does not exist)">Cohen v. Hurley</a>, 366 U.S. 117 (1961)</td></tr></tbody></table><p><b>Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein</b>, <a href="/enwiki/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_385" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 385">385</a> <a href="/enwiki/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> 511 (1967) was a <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court</a> in which the court held in a <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Plurality_decision" title="Plurality decision">plurality</a> decision that the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Self-incrimination_clause" class="mw-redirect" title="Self-incrimination clause">Self-incrimination Clause</a> of the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fifth Amendment</a> applied even to attorneys in a <a href="/enwiki/wiki/State_bar_association" title="State bar association">state bar association</a> under investigation, and an attorney asserting that right may not be disbarred for invoking it. It was a very close case, being 5-4, with the majority only winning with the vote of Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Abe_Fortas" title="Abe Fortas">Abe Fortas</a> who wrote a special <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Concurring_opinion" title="Concurring opinion">concurring opinion</a> on the matter. This case directly overruled <a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cohen_v._Hurley&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Cohen v. Hurley (page does not exist)">Cohen v. Hurley</a>, <a href="/enwiki/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_366" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 366">366</a> U.S. 117 (1961), a nearly identical case in which the Supreme Court had just recently upheld an attorney's disbarment for his refusal to testify or produce documents in regards to an investigation. This case has since spawned much debate, with some arguing this decision "signaled the decline of bar disciplinary enforcement". <sup id="cite_ref-ABA_Journal_1-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-ABA_Journal-1">&#91;1&#93;</a></sup> </p><div id="toc" class="toc" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="mw-toc-heading"><input type="checkbox" role="button" id="toctogglecheckbox" class="toctogglecheckbox" style="display:none" /><div class="toctitle" lang="en" dir="ltr"><h2 id="mw-toc-heading">Contents</h2><span class="toctogglespan"><label class="toctogglelabel" for="toctogglecheckbox"></label></span></div> <ul> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="#Historical_Context"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Historical Context</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-2"><a href="#New_York_Court_of_Appeals"><span class="tocnumber">1.1</span> <span class="toctext">New York Court of Appeals</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="#Supreme_Court_Decision"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Supreme Court Decision</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="#Majority_Opinion"><span class="tocnumber">2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Majority Opinion</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="#Fortas&#39;_Concurrence"><span class="tocnumber">2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Fortas' Concurrence</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="#Harlan&#39;s_Dissent"><span class="tocnumber">2.3</span> <span class="toctext">Harlan's Dissent</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="#White&#39;s_Dissent"><span class="tocnumber">2.4</span> <span class="toctext">White's Dissent</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8"><a href="#Legal_Public_Perception"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Legal Public Perception</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9"><a href="#References"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></a></li> </ul> </div> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Historical_Context">Historical Context</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=1" title="Edit section: Historical Context"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <p>Around 1965, attorney Samuel Spevack of the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/New_York_State_Bar_Association" title="New York State Bar Association">New York State Bar Association</a> was under investigation and was served with a <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Subpoena" title="Subpoena">subpoena</a> to produce various financial and business documents. Spevack denied, citing his Fifth Amendment right and that turning the documents over might incriminate him. With his refusal to comply, the state bar association charged him with professional misconduct, and was ordered disbarred by the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/New_York_State_Supreme_Court,_Appellate_Division,_Second_Department" title="New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department">Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Second Division</a> to take effect on December 1, 1965.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-2">&#91;2&#93;</a></sup> Solomon A. Klein throughout these proceedings was the named respondent, this was due to him having been the Chief Counsel to the Judiciary Inquiry on Professional Conduct of the New York State Supreme Court. <sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-3">&#91;3&#93;</a></sup> </p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="New_York_Court_of_Appeals">New York Court of Appeals</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=2" title="Edit section: New York Court of Appeals"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3><p> Spevack appealed the ruling to the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/New_York_Court_of_Appeals" title="New York Court of Appeals">New York Court of Appeals</a> which heard arguments on November 23, 1965. The court made its decision on December 1, the same day Spevack was to be disbarred, and ultimately based on the recent <i>Cohen</i><sup id="cite_ref-Cohen_4-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Cohen-4">&#91;4&#93;</a></sup> decision, upheld the disbarment and held that no violation of rights had occurred.<sup id="cite_ref-:0_5-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:0-5">&#91;5&#93;</a></sup> Its decision had rested on <i>Cohen</i> and that, </p><blockquote><p>"the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to a demand, not for oral testimony, but that an attorney produce records required by law to be kept by him" (citing <i>Davis</i> v. <i>United States,</i> 328 U.S. 582 and <i>Shapiro</i> v. <i>United States,</i> 335 U.S. 1).</p></blockquote><p>Judge <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Stanley_H._Fuld" title="Stanley H. Fuld">Stanley H. Fuld</a>, who went on to become the Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals in 1967, wrote a concurring memorandum in which he expressed disdain in this case, showing he disagreed with <i>Cohen</i> decision but was bound by it.<sup id="cite_ref-:0_5-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-:0-5">&#91;5&#93;</a></sup> </p><h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Supreme_Court_Decision">Supreme Court Decision</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=3" title="Edit section: Supreme Court Decision"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <figure class="mw-default-size" typeof="mw:File/Thumb"><a href="/enwiki/wiki/File:SCOTUS_Justice_Abe_Fortas.jpeg" class="mw-file-description"><img src="/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/SCOTUS_Justice_Abe_Fortas.jpeg/220px-SCOTUS_Justice_Abe_Fortas.jpeg" decoding="async" width="220" height="272" class="mw-file-element" srcset="/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/SCOTUS_Justice_Abe_Fortas.jpeg/330px-SCOTUS_Justice_Abe_Fortas.jpeg 1.5x, /upwiki/wikipedia/commons/0/08/SCOTUS_Justice_Abe_Fortas.jpeg 2x" data-file-width="404" data-file-height="500" /></a><figcaption>Justice Abe Fortas voted for the majority and wrote a separate concurring opinion in <i>Spevack v. Klein</i>.</figcaption></figure> <p>Spevack appealed once more to the Supreme Court, which granted <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Writ_of_Cert" class="mw-redirect" title="Writ of Cert">certiorari</a>, and oral arguments took place on November 7, 1966 and decided on January 16, 1967. In a very close 5-4 decision the court, with a plurality and not a majority, ruled in favor of Spevack. The court reached its plurality with the vote of Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Abe_Fortas" title="Abe Fortas">Abe Fortas</a>, who agreed with the general idea of attorneys having a Fifth Amendment right in this case but maintained that public employees did not enjoy that same right. </p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Majority_Opinion">Majority Opinion</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=4" title="Edit section: Majority Opinion"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3><p> The majority opinion was written by Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/William_O._Douglas" title="William O. Douglas">William O. Douglas</a>, and was joined by Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Hugo_Black" title="Hugo Black">Hugo Black</a> , Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Earl_Warren" title="Earl Warren">Earl Warren</a>, and Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/William_J._Brennan_Jr." title="William J. Brennan Jr.">William Brennan</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-SC_Opinion_6-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-SC_Opinion-6">&#91;6&#93;</a></sup> All of these Justices voted for an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in the <i>Cohen</i> case. Their opinion rests on a strong interpretation of <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights" title="Incorporation of the Bill of Rights">incorporation</a> of the Fifth Amendment, saying,</p><blockquote><p>"it is in that tradition that we overrule <i>Cohen v. Hurley.</i> We find no room in the privilege against self-incrimination for classifications of people so as to deny it to some and extend it to others. Lawyers are not excepted from the words "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"; and we can imply no exception."</p></blockquote><p>The opinion strengthened the case of <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Malloy_v._Hogan" title="Malloy v. Hogan"><i>Malloy v. Hogan</i></a>, 378 US 1 (1964) which incorporated the right against self-incrimination against the states. It argued the Appellate Division had relied on the <i>Cohen</i> case instead of <i>Hogan</i> because Spevack was a member of the bar and thus <i>Cohen</i> did not apply, an interpretation the majority did not agree with. In <i>Hogan</i>, it was reinforced that no person should be punished for their silence by virtue of their Fifth Amendment right, protected and incorporated by the Fourteenth, and the majority determined that the threat of disbarment and its eventual execution was a violation of that precedent. They argued,</p><blockquote><p>"The threat of disbarment and the loss of professional standing, professional reputation, and of livelihood are powerful forms of compulsion to make a lawyer relinquish the privilege."</p></blockquote><p>This case has allowed attorneys to enjoy greater protections within their businesses and livelihoods by being able to assert their Fifth Amendment right within investigations. </p><h3><span id="Fortas.27_Concurrence"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Fortas'_Concurrence">Fortas' Concurrence</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=5" title="Edit section: Fortas&#039; Concurrence"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3><p> Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Abe_Fortas" title="Abe Fortas">Abe Fortas</a> wrote a concurring opinion<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-7">&#91;7&#93;</a></sup> in this case, agreeing with the outcome but wishing for the plurality to specify that this case and ruling would not afford public employees a self-incrimination right if they were under investigation. He argues, </p><blockquote><p>"I agree that [<i>Cohen</i>], should be overruled. But I would distinguish between a lawyer's right to remain silent and that of a public employee who is asked questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of his official duties, as distinguished from his beliefs or other matters that are not within the scope of the specific duties which he undertook faithfully to perform as part of his employment by the State."</p></blockquote><p>He in essence agreed with the majority due to the simple fact he believed, </p><blockquote><p>"a lawyer is not an employee of the State. He does not have the responsibility of an employee to account to the State for his actions, because he does not perform them as agent of the State. His responsibility to the State is to obey its laws and the rules of conduct that it has generally laid down as part of its licensing procedures."</p></blockquote> <h3><span id="Harlan.27s_Dissent"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="Harlan's_Dissent">Harlan's Dissent</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=6" title="Edit section: Harlan&#039;s Dissent"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3><p> The first dissent in this case was written by Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_II" title="John Marshall Harlan II">John Marshall Harlan II</a>, joined by Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Tom_C._Clark" title="Tom C. Clark">Tom Clark</a>, and Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Potter_Stewart" title="Potter Stewart">Potter Stewart</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-8">&#91;8&#93;</a></sup> These same Justices also voted against an attorney's Fifth Amendment right in <i>Cohen</i>. Their argument rests on an idea that this decision would be a great loss to public trust, bar associations, and the legal profession at large as it will be,</p><blockquote><p>"frustrating to courts and bar associations throughout the country in their efforts to maintain high standards at the bar."</p></blockquote><p>They further argue that this decision would be devastating to the legal profession in the public eye, since attorneys and would-be applicants can claim Fifth Amendment protection to shield themselves from any proper investigation. This is put together by saying, </p><blockquote><p>"[This case] exposes this Court itself to the possible indignity that it may one day have to admit to its own bar such a lawyer unless it can somehow get at the truth of suspicions, the investigation of which the applicant has previously succeeded in blocking. For I can perceive no distinction between "admission" and "disbarment" in the rationale of what is now held."</p></blockquote><p>They further reason that even with the <i>Hogan</i> decision, the Court need not be so hasty in completely overturning <i>Cohen</i>, and further that the plurality didn't have deep enough thought or consideration at the "true issue", that being,</p><blockquote><p>"whether petitioner's disbarment for his failure to provide information relevant to charges of misconduct in carrying on his law practice impermissibly vitiated the protection afforded by the privilege."</p></blockquote><p>They argue that the interpretation of the Fifth Amendment federally largely stems from either a historical standpoint or modern and current public interests or urgency, and thus its incorporation against the states need not deviate from that same interpretation. They argue that this case doesn't satisfy either prerequisite, and further continue to speak on the fact that States, through their bar associations, are given a large amount of leeway in what they can require for their professions. They point to three cases, saying,</p><blockquote><p>"The States may demand any qualifications which have "a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity," <i>Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,</i><sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-9">&#91;9&#93;</a></sup> 353 U. S. 232, 353 U. S. 239, and may exclude any applicant who fails to satisfy them. In particular, a State may require evidence of good character, and may place the onus of its production upon the applicant. <i>Konigsberg v. State Bar of California,</i><sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-10">&#91;10&#93;</a></sup> 366 U. S. 36. Finally, a State may, without constitutional objection, require in the same fashion continuing evidence of professional and moral fitness as a condition of the retention of the right to practice. <i>Cohen v. Hurley,</i><sup id="cite_ref-Cohen_4-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Cohen-4">&#91;4&#93;</a></sup> 366 U. S. 117. All this is in no way questioned by today's decision."</p></blockquote> <h3><span id="White.27s_Dissent"></span><span class="mw-headline" id="White's_Dissent">White's Dissent</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=7" title="Edit section: White&#039;s Dissent"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3><p> Justice <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Byron_White" title="Byron White">Byron White</a> offered a separate dissenting opinion, instead choosing to rely on <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Garrity_v._New_Jersey" title="Garrity v. New Jersey">Garrity v. New Jersey</a>,<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-11">&#91;11&#93;</a></sup> 385 U.S. 493 (1967), a case they had ruled on in the same exact term as the case at hand. His argument is summed up by him saying, </p><blockquote><p>"Admittedly, however, in attempting to determine the present qualifications of an employee by consultation with the employee himself, the State may ask for information which, if given, would not only result in a discharge, but would be very useful evidence in a criminal proceeding. <i>Garrity,</i> in my view, protects against the latter possibility. Consequently, I see no reason for refusing to permit the State to pursue its other valid interest and to discharge an employee who refuses to cooperate in the State's effort to determine his qualifications for continued employment."<sup id="cite_ref-12" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-12">&#91;12&#93;</a></sup> </p></blockquote> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Legal_Public_Perception">Legal Public Perception</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=8" title="Edit section: Legal Public Perception"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <p>Since the ruling there has been much debate on this topic, with many of the legal community speaking out against the ruling. </p><p> One outspoken critic of the ruling was the widely known Michael Franck, a former director of the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/State_Bar_of_Michigan" title="State Bar of Michigan">State Bar of Michigan</a> and leading figure within the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/American_Bar_Association" title="American Bar Association">American Bar Association</a><sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-13">&#91;13&#93;</a></sup>. Franck wrote <i>"The Myth of Spevack v. Klein"</i> as part of the American Bar Association's Journal just a year after the decision was handed down. The scathing article was written largely from the perspective of someone involved greatly from within a bar association, mainly talking about how public perception of the legal profession would fall following the ruling. He wrote, </p><blockquote><p>"If, as the Court has held, the furnishing of an attorney is an essential part of the administration of justice for which the state is responsible, it would seem to follow that the state is at least as interested in the integrity of the attorneys it licenses as in the integrity of its employees" </p></blockquote><p>There has however been some opinions to show that the ruling wasn't completely wrong, with specifically one article arguing that <i>Spevack</i> doesn't wish to regard a bar disciplinary hearing as criminal, which is generally the only context in which the Fifth Amendment may be invoked. One article written by President of the <a href="/enwiki/wiki/New_York_City_Bar_Association" title="New York City Bar Association">New York City Bar Association</a> <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Russell_D._Niles" title="Russell D. Niles">Russell D. Niles</a> and former Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals <a href="/enwiki/wiki/Judith_Kaye" title="Judith Kaye">Judith Kaye</a> somewhat defends the reasoning of the ruling, saying, </p><blockquote><p>"Spevack suggests to some that the Court would now regard a disciplinary proceeding as criminal and not, as long accepted, civil...The Court is only saying that it regards a disciplinary proceeding as an extremely serious matter which, in its result, may be more like a criminal conviction than like a civil judgment. A lawyer being disciplined must therefore be adequately protected; he must have due process of law. This is not to say that the essential nature of the proceeding must be changed from civil to criminal; grievance procedures do in fact include the highest safeguards."<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-14">&#91;14&#93;</a></sup></p></blockquote> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="References">References</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Spevack_v._Klein&amp;action=edit&amp;section=9" title="Edit section: References"><span>edit</span></a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <div class="mw-references-wrap mw-references-columns"><ol class="references"> <li id="cite_note-ABA_Journal-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-ABA_Journal_1-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1133582631">.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free a{background:url("/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration a{background:url("/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription a{background:url("/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#3a3;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}</style><cite id="CITEREFFranck1986" class="citation journal cs1">Franck, Michael (October 1986). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724560">"<span class="cs1-kern-left"></span>"The Myth of Spevack v. Klein"<span class="cs1-kern-right"></span>"</a>. <i>American Bar Association Journal</i>. <b>54</b> (10): 970–974<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=article&amp;rft.jtitle=American+Bar+Association+Journal&amp;rft.atitle=%22The+Myth+of+Spevack+v.+Klein%22&amp;rft.volume=54&amp;rft.issue=10&amp;rft.pages=970-974&amp;rft.date=1986-10&amp;rft.aulast=Franck&amp;rft.aufirst=Michael&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fstable%2F25724560&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-2"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-2">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-7">"Order on Motion for Stay (24 A.D.2d 653)"</a>. <i>casetext.com</i>. 1 December 1965<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=casetext.com&amp;rft.atitle=Order+on+Motion+for+Stay+%2824+A.D.2d+653%29&amp;rft.date=1965-12-01&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcasetext.com%2Fcase%2Fmatter-of-spevack-7&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-3"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-3">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/28/obituaries/solomon-a-klein-lawyer-82.html">"Obituary of Solomon A. Klein, Lawyer, 82"</a>. <i>nytimes.com</i>. 28 August 1988<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=nytimes.com&amp;rft.atitle=Obituary+of+Solomon+A.+Klein%2C+Lawyer%2C+82&amp;rft.date=1988-08-28&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F1988%2F08%2F28%2Fobituaries%2Fsolomon-a-klein-lawyer-82.html&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-Cohen-4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Cohen_4-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-Cohen_4-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFHarlan_II" class="citation web cs1">Harlan II, John. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/117/">"Majority Opinion - Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Majority+Opinion+-+Cohen+v.+Hurley%2C+366+U.S.+117+%281961%29&amp;rft.aulast=Harlan+II&amp;rft.aufirst=John&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F366%2F117%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-:0-5"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-:0_5-0"><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-:0_5-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-spevack-2">"Matter of Spevack, Opinion of the N.Y. Crt. of. App"</a>. <i>casetext.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=casetext.com&amp;rft.atitle=Matter+of+Spevack%2C+Opinion+of+the+N.Y.+Crt.+of.+App.&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fcasetext.com%2Fcase%2Fmatter-of-spevack-2&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-SC_Opinion-6"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-SC_Opinion_6-0">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFDouglas" class="citation web cs1">Douglas, William. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/">"Majority Opinion - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Majority+Opinion+-+Spevack+v.+Klein%2C+385+U.S.+511+%281967%29&amp;rft.aulast=Douglas&amp;rft.aufirst=William&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F385%2F511%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-7"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-7">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFFortas" class="citation web cs1">Fortas, Abe. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/">"Concurring Opinion (Fortas) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Concurring+Opinion+%28Fortas%29+-+Spevack+v.+Klein%2C+385+U.S.+511+%281967%29&amp;rft.aulast=Fortas&amp;rft.aufirst=Abe&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F385%2F511%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-8"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-8">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFHarlan_II" class="citation web cs1">Harlan II, John. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/">"Dissenting Opinion (Harlan) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Dissenting+Opinion+%28Harlan%29+-+Spevack+v.+Klein%2C+385+U.S.+511+%281967%29&amp;rft.aulast=Harlan+II&amp;rft.aufirst=John&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F385%2F511%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-9"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-9">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFBlack" class="citation web cs1">Black, Hugo. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/353/232/#tab-opinion-1941460">"Majority Opinion - Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Majority+Opinion+-+Schware+v.+Board+of+Bar+Examiners%2C+353+U.S.+232+%281957%29&amp;rft.aulast=Black&amp;rft.aufirst=Hugo&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F353%2F232%2F%23tab-opinion-1941460&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-10"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-10">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFHarlan_II" class="citation web cs1">Harlan II, John. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/36/">"Majority Opinion - Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 U.S. 36 (1961)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Majority+Opinion+-+Konigsberg+v.+State+Bar+of+California%2C+366+U.S.+36+%281961%29&amp;rft.aulast=Harlan+II&amp;rft.aufirst=John&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F366%2F36%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-11"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-11">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFDouglas" class="citation web cs1">Douglas, William. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/">"Majority Opinion - Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Majority+Opinion+-+Garrity+v.+New+Jersey%2C+385+U.S.+493+%281967%29&amp;rft.aulast=Douglas&amp;rft.aufirst=William&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F385%2F493%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-12"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-12">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFWhite" class="citation web cs1">White, Byron. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/511/">"Dissenting Opinion (White) - Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967)"</a>. <i>supreme.justia.com</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=supreme.justia.com&amp;rft.atitle=Dissenting+Opinion+%28White%29+-+Spevack+v.+Klein%2C+385+U.S.+511+%281967%29&amp;rft.aulast=White&amp;rft.aufirst=Byron&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fsupreme.justia.com%2Fcases%2Ffederal%2Fus%2F385%2F511%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-13"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-13">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite class="citation web cs1"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/initiatives_awards/awards/aboutthemichaelfranckaward1/">"Michael Franck Professional Responsibility Award"</a>. <i>americanbar.org</i><span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=unknown&amp;rft.jtitle=americanbar.org&amp;rft.atitle=Michael+Franck+Professional+Responsibility+Award&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanbar.org%2Fgroups%2Fprofessional_responsibility%2Finitiatives_awards%2Fawards%2Faboutthemichaelfranckaward1%2F&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> <li id="cite_note-14"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-14">^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><link rel="mw-deduplicated-inline-style" href="mw-data:TemplateStyles:r1133582631"><cite id="CITEREFKayeNiles1967" class="citation journal cs1">Kaye, Judith; Niles, Russell (December 1967). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/25724238">"Spevack v. Klein: Milestone or Millstone in Bar Discipline?"</a>. <i>American Bar Association Journal</i>. <b>53</b> (12): 1121–1126<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <span class="nowrap">18 March</span> 2024</span>.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.genre=article&amp;rft.jtitle=American+Bar+Association+Journal&amp;rft.atitle=Spevack+v.+Klein%3A+Milestone+or+Millstone+in+Bar+Discipline%3F&amp;rft.volume=53&amp;rft.issue=12&amp;rft.pages=1121-1126&amp;rft.date=1967-12&amp;rft.aulast=Kaye&amp;rft.aufirst=Judith&amp;rft.au=Niles%2C+Russell&amp;rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fstable%2F25724238&amp;rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3ASpevack+v.+Klein" class="Z3988"></span></span> </li> </ol></div></div>'
Whether or not the change was made through a Tor exit node (tor_exit_node)
false
Unix timestamp of change (timestamp)
'1710798865'
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog/37261962"