Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

IN RE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS

August 1, 1975

In the Matter of GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS. In re GRAND JURY EMPANELLED, JANUARY 21, 1975


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WHIPPLE

 It was the ruling of this Court that petitioner be required to produce the subpoenaed records, in camera, on July 16, 1975. On that date, petitioner failed to produce the records in question and, after oral argument, this Court adjudged petitioner to be in civil contempt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1826. The Court ordered that petitioner be placed in custody and be fined the sum of $1,500.00 daily until such time as he produced the records in question. The sentence was immediately suspended "until further order of this Court pending disposition of other issues which have been raised in this cause." The Court also ordered that a hearing be held on July 23, 1975 to determine whether petitioner should be held in criminal contempt.

 On July 17, 1975, petitioner filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals from this Court's adjudication and sentence of contempt.

 On July 22, 1975, petitioner filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals an application for a stay of the hearing scheduled for July 23, 1975, pending appeal. On July 22, 1975, the Third Circuit, while denying petitioner's motion for a stay, entered an Order reversing the Order of this Court directing petitioner to produce the subpoenaed records. The Court of Appeals further reversed this Court's Order of Contempt, without prejudice to the rights of the United States to reinstitute contempt proceedings following the evidentiary hearing then scheduled to begin July 23, 1975.

 An evidentiary hearing concerning the basis for petitioner's assertion of the fifth amendment privilege was held on July 24, 1975. Also the subject of inquiry at the hearing was petitioner's contention that he may have been the subject of illegal surveillance by the United States.

 FINDINGS OF FACT

 1. Petitioner is an attorney-at-law (T-7).

 2. Petitioner was admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1933 (T-84).

 3. In approximately 1934, petitioner formed the law firm of Freedman, Goldstein and Pechner of Philadelphia, representing itself to third parties and to the public as partners (T-88).

 4. From 1938 to 1944, petitioner practiced as a member of the firm of Freedman and Goldstein. During that time, Freedman and Goldstein held themselves out as partners to the public and to third parties (T-91).

 5. From 1944 to 1962, petitioner practiced law as a member of the firm of Freedman, Landy and Lorry, holding the firm out during that time as a partnership to third parties and to the public (T-92).

 6. The law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry, which is the successor firm to Freedman, Landy and Lorry, came into existence in 1962. Between 1962 and the present, petitioner and others, including Wilfred Lorry, have represented themselves to third parties and the public as partners in that firm. The firm is located at 5th and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (T-34).

 8. From 1934 to date, petitioner and other so-called profit-sharing attorneys have referred to or represented their association with various law firms, including their present association with Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry, and its predecessor firm, Freedman, Landy and Lorry, as a partnership and have made this reference orally and in writing (T-10, 11).

 9. Throughout the period 1934 to date, petitioner has never entered into any formal partnership agreement, written or oral, with any of the attorneys with whom he has been associated (T-88, 90, 92, 94, 170).

 10. Petitioner is a member of the Advisory Committee of the United States Supreme Court on Admiralty Rules and Civil Rules. In connection therewith, he holds himself out to the Supreme Court of the United States as a member of the firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry (T-70, 71).

 11. Petitioner is a member of the bars of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (T-85).

 12. Petitioner has throughout his legal career remained a member in good standing of all Bars to which he has been admitted (T-87).

 13. Petitioner is a member of the American, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and New York Bar Associations (T-85).

 14. Petitioner is a fellow and past president of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, fellow and former member of the Board of Governors of the American College of Trial Lawyers, and a permanent member of the judicial conferences of the 3rd and 4th Judicial Circuits (T-85, 86).

 15. The admission fees paid to the various courts of which the petitioner has become a member were paid out of the firm account of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry (T-110).

 16. The expenses of petitioner incurred at the Judicial Conferences of the 3rd and 4th Circuits were paid by the law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry (T-111).

 17. The law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry is one of the largest law firms in the United States in the field of maritime and admiralty law (T-200).

 18. The law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry holds itself out to the general public and the legal profession as a law firm consisting of 12 members and 9 associates (T-41).

 19. Presently, the law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry has approximately 50 employees other than attorneys (T-34). It maintains offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New York City (T-34, 35, 36).

 20. Petitioner alone determines the salaries or share of profits of each lawyer employed at Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry and consults with no one in making this determination (T-95, 172).

 21. Petitioner alone decides when a lawyer employed at Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry shall begin to receive as compensation a share in profits (T-98).

 22. Upon becoming a profit-sharing employee at Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry, a lawyer makes no capital contribution (T-98).

 23. Petitioner assigns all matters for handling by both profit-sharing and salaried lawyers or designates another attorney to discharge this function. Petitioner has, on occasion, taken assignments away from profit-sharing lawyers (T-101).

 24. When a lawyer terminates his association at Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry, he may take with him only his personal files authorized by petitioner (T-101, 172).

 26. Petitioner negotiated the terms of said lease for the office to include the designation of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry as a Pennsylvania partnership (T-15)(G-2).

 27. Petitioner caused to be included in the lease a provision limiting the liability of the partnership (T-18)(G-2).

 28. In a letter dated October 18, 1965 from Reid and Stambaugh to the law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry, requesting approval of additional terms in the lease, acceptance was made on behalf of the law firm by Abraham E. Freedman as a partner of the firm (T-20)(G-2).

 29. The law firm has stationery on which the firm name of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry is prominently displayed with the legend "Counsellors at Law and Proctors in Admiralty". Said stationery sets forth the names of the attorneys in the firm together with the addresses of the firm's offices in Philadelphia and New York (T-44).

 30. The law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry has 3 bookkeepers who maintain the firm's books and records on the premises (T-41, 42).

 31. Petitioner does not know or is unsure of what types of financial books and records are maintained by the law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry (T-60-67).

 32. The financial records of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry are maintained in the bookkeeper's office under lock and only petitioner and the bookkeeper have access keys (T-103, 171).

 33. Members of the firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry have access to ledger sheets of only the cases they are handling and consult with the bookkeeper concerning the financial aspects of these cases (T-103).

 34. The law firm of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry has three bank accounts in the firm name, including one at the Central Pennsylvania National Bank, and two at the Continental Bank (T-42).

 35. Bills sent out for legal services performed by members of the firm are sent out in the name of Freedman, Borowsky and Lorry, at the direction of various attorneys in the firm (T-74, 75).

 36. Remuneration for the legal services is made payable to the law firm and deposited in bank accounts ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.