Felber v. Association of the Bar of the City of New York

1967-04-10

Headline: A lawyer’s long challenge to a disbarment after a later-voided criminal conviction is left unreviewed as the Court declines to hear the case, keeping him barred while state procedures stand.

Holding: The Court declined to review the lawyer’s constitutional claims and denied his petition, leaving state rulings that keep him disbarred in place and preventing his reinstatement.

Real World Impact:

Leaves a lawyer unable to practice for over 25 years despite his conviction being voided.
Allows New York’s reinstatement process and burden-shifting against disbarred lawyers to remain unreviewed.
No Supreme Court ruling on the constitutional claims against the state’s procedures.

Topics: lawyer disbarment, voided conviction, procedural fairness, access to profession

Summary

Background

Sidney Felber, a lawyer, was automatically disbarred in 1941 after a trial conviction for larceny and forgery. An appellate court later held that criminal conviction void and set it aside, ending the criminal case. After the conviction was dismissed, Felber repeatedly asked the New York courts to let him return to the bar. A referee held a hearing and denied reinstatement after relying on much of the same testimony that the appellate court had found legally insufficient. The Appellate Division accepted the referee’s recommendation, and the state’s highest court refused to hear appeals on the ground that the orders were not “final.” Felber has been unable to practice law for over 25 years.

Reasoning

The core question was whether New York could keep a lawyer disbarred when the underlying criminal conviction had been voided and the same evidence was used to deny readmission. The Supreme Court declined to review Felber’s petition and therefore left the state courts’ decisions in place. Practically, the state process — including the burden placed on a lawyer seeking reinstatement and the limits on appeals from denial of reinstatement — remained untouched as a result of the Court’s refusal to take the case.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, Felber remains barred from practicing and the state procedures challenged in his case continue to apply. The decision means similar challenges to state reinstatement rules went unresolved at the national level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Black, joined by Justice Douglas, dissented from the Court’s refusal. He argued that continuing to bar Felber after his conviction was voided deprived him of due process and that shifting the burden to him violated equal protection.