New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
January 30, 1989
05/ 10/ 2008 19:02 FAX
l/31/89NYLJ 5, (ool.l)
l/31/89N.Y.L.J. S,(col. I}
New Law
Volume 201. Numbe•
Copyright by N•w Law Puhlishing Company
Tuesday, ll, l969
Paae t
Following i1 the text made public Juetice rranois T.
o: the Appellate Division, Firat of his report to tha Depart-
mental • Committee on the submitted earlier this month by
Michael Gentile, the committee's counsel and Sarah McShea , deputy chief
On Jan. 3, I requested the re•ignatiou• of • GeDtile, the chief counsel ,
and Sar&h MoShaa, the deputy chiet counsel, of the Departmental Disciplinary
mittee (hereinafter DPC', In hi• of • atatea:
1\s we diacUI,.d today, I will bt reeigning my as Chief Counsel to the
Ciaciplinary Committee effective March 1st, 1989. I am looking for-
ward to most of my day• until then cle•ring up tom• remaining looae end•
in the office and by taking some muoh needed time. I am, ot courae, ready
willing to help i qmooth transition this period.
''On a • • note, % want to thank Your Honor and the entire Court for a very
satiefying and fulfilling eight yeara as the Committee'» Chief Counsel.
! wish you all the best ,ft
''I learned today t:.hat Mike aentile has in!ot"med you of hia intention to reaiqn as
Chief Coune$1 to the Dieoiplin•ry Committee effactiva March 1, 1989.
• aerved happily as
s Di!!!puty for three and a half years, this utdltelil
me ae a propitious time for me to pursue new prcf•••ion•l opporeuniti•• tor my-
self. I art\ thenton l;'esigning my position ae Chief Coun•el to the Diacip-
committee effective March 1989.
"I hav• greatly enjoyed my eight yeara on the Committee's atatf, not only for th@
invalu&ble trial and       it has affordeQ, for • oppor-
tunity to work with a committ•• and Cou•t devoted to upholding prof111ional stand-
ards and un m•king attorney diacipline a • in N•w York.
MI thank Your Honor and th• entire court !or your support and kin0n••• ov•r ch•
years. s ••

2000 The New York Pub. co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19:02 FAX
l/31/89 NYU 5, (col. 1)
l/31/89 N.Y.L.I. 5, (col. 1)
At the time of 1eparat@ neither Mr. Gentile nor Ma . McShea
• my request for their to any cause unrelated to the die-
of their duties at the Ms . McShea'• reeignat1on was consistent with
steps taken by her in July 1988 to find other employment. She w•a th•n, and tor
months thereafter, angered bY the July promotion and appointment conald
Brudie, Rsq. , to ths newly created of executive assistant to R.
Esq . , the DOC chairman, a poat created by me beoauae
among reas-
on• , th•r• wa1 aubGtantial cause to conclude that Mr. Gentile had in fact abanw
doned the operation of the OOC to Ms. McShea. By the cf • ap•
pointment, he was given, together with a•ntil•, administrative power
th• DDC . Purthlr, Mr. Brudie was expxeaely made this Court's administ rat i ve
liai1on with the Committee. vesting of joint adminiatr•tive power ie an un•
de•irable step, unless it is required by necee•ity, th•e nee•t•iey ehen
ted in the DOC,
S1nee my request for the of M•. and Ma. on 3, I
have oriticized in the • • • having di•cbar9ed Mr . Gentile and Ms. McShea
without good cause. 1 am not required by law to a&sign any reason for my
request for their reeignations, I now must regretfully •t•t• aaveral of th• cau1e1
underlying thole reaiinationu. These causes would have been diaclosed to thoae twc
DOC member&; Mr . Hyn•• and Mr. Greenberg, who , in the •xarciaa of sound profla-
aional judgment, to aay nothing of ordinary fairnees, ahould have inquired of the
Court before tc the press about a mat ter of which they knew they ware not
whol l y intormad, an4 inde'd were substantially apeak1ni to the
press they ehoUld have diecloeed the length of their with Mr. Gent i le.
!t might have WhY even to this day they hav• n•ver ••ked me why l had
a1ked their • to resi gn.
Firat, for about diX Mr. a•ntile filed work sheets in which he faleely
work periods when he wae net employed anywhere in the business of
DDC. This

th8 •pecitic character of which l did not know, wa• on occasi on
•u•pect•d by m• and led t o my meetings with Mr. Jack•on, tbe DDC chairman, en
April S, 1981 and June 2, 1986; ana to e•l•phone calls, too numerous t o count,
myself , Mr. Jacksod, and Mr, (Harold) Reynolds (Clexk of the Court) . Xt
led, a& well, to conferences betw••n myael! and Mr. Gentile. It led, several •
ago, to a   • • b8twaen t he Clerk of the an4 Mr, Gentile's 9ecretary
who signed Mr. Gentile's attendance records. Upon being by Mr. Reynolds
of the legal risk involved in •igning Gentile's attendance chould they
be !alee
Mr . Gentile's aecr•tary daolinad to sign them.
What the time perioda tor which Mr . Gentile was paid when na was not actu-
ally working f or the State either in the DDC off1ce Qr out of it?
Writing•, by an attornay on tha DDC ;taff of perjury, by
a PPC whose • • •t• •vailAbla to t he DOC, • ehae Mr . Gen-
tile, for he appeared daily, or • w•ekly figure much more prob•bly in the
2008 The New Law Pub . Cg,
05/ 10/ 2008 19:03 FAX
1/31/89 NYU S. (col. 1)
1/31189 N.Y.L.J. S, (col. I)
of 12 hours, becau•e he regularly failed to appear one or two days a week, or
appeared at odd hours, atayed briefly, and th•n l•!t. I doubt that th@re is any
member of th• public who believes that the State should pay, upon falae wcrk
sheets, an annual •alary of $80,000 for work of about 12 hours weekly. Aa forMa.
McShea, there can be no doubt that ahe knew of Mr. Gentile's ot hi8
offiQe, an that Alone was suffieiene for hiB on Jan. Jd.
second, during the last six years, Mr. was disciplinary prosec-
utor of thie court which nae jurisdiction 44,000 in Manhattan and
the Dronx. During tho&• years, a when the annual intake of doek•e•d
oases remained relatively atable, the backlo; or docketed • from 720
the end of 1983 to over l,JOO in December 1988, the month in which it wa• decided
ehat Mr. Gentile'• ra•ignatian waa Nor may we apeak aonf14ently of the
by Gentile over the to the In a writing executed
under penalty of perjury, this court hal had confirmed In£ormation given to it
prior to Mr. Gentile's resignation:
N[Mr . Oentile
&] major ooncern was that he •houtd be criticized by the Oourt or
the Clerk of the court. Consequently, ha took sreat paine to insure that a true
picture of condition• exi•ting in the DOC were oonoealed from the court.
"The emphasig wa& on closing complaint tiles at any coat to reduce th@ number of
backlogg•d oaaes . Monthl y quota• were imposed on lawyere for closed oases
pre&sure wa• applied to cases regardleae their merit. At one ataff meet-
that I attended several year a ago, Mr. Gentile stated that we were to use 'pro-
  • to cloae oa•••• Although he waa oaretul not to
ataee it, ehe implieation was that wer• to close and •verything in or-
der to reduc• the backlog to below 1200 cases .
"I have a auepicion that the laat few • etatistics have been altered to
give the that tne number of backloggoQ cases was smaller than actu·
ally was. I do know that in yeare hundreda of new complaints wert accumu-
in ba•kets and withheld for months before they were opened. In thi5 way, Mr.
Gentile was Gble to repreatnt to the Court at the end of each that the
cf backlogged casa• been reduced, when 1n that w•• nQt
These facta algne justify Mr. Gentilat& and may implicate Ma. McShea aa
Third, during the past two years, Chairman and %, •• well as Mr.
6lda, learned of Mr. Gentile's improper conduct in at lea1t three cases involving
political and A fourth & !ormer Committee membor .
In the first ca••• • r•aommending diami••al of two complaints. stated
to Mr. Jackson tbe complaint• involved only political • • made during •
oampaiin· He thus procured the of Mr, Jaokaon necessary fer the closing
the tile. In eact, as Mr. w•ll knsw, the complaints sufficiently
Copyright c 2009 The New York Law PUb. Co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19 : 04 FAX
'Y' • • __ , - 'Y'VV 6 V 6 . ...
l/Jl/89 NYU S, {col. 1)
l/31/89 N.Y.L.J. S, (col. 1)
.,.... ..,. .... ..
Qlaima o! professional misconduct in wholly commercial tn unlawfully
elc•ing the file, Mr. Gentile wrote a servile letter to chat tigure, in-
viting him to Gentile; a letter to the complainant chastizing him
for having filed the eomplJinta.
In the aecond case, after a petition had been served, Mr. Gentile conferred with
  and hia The respondent offered to aaaept a private admon-
ition but Mr. Gentila aaid that the Mr. Jack•on, had demanded the •
•pendent's acceptance ot a censure. fiben the $aid that h• woul4
appeal to Mr . Jaek$on becaus• he not believe that that was Mr . 3aokaon'a po-
aition, Mr, Gtntile answered that, if the publio censure were not accepted. he
would amend the petition order to add • • additional ¢f which Mr _
Qentile known • petition wa• 6rawn. Upon of Mr. Gentil•'•
•tatemants, Mr . 3aokaon immediately rapudiated them, saying that he had never
th• poaition represented by Mr. Gentile and an admonition wae unques-
tionably acceptable.
tn the third ea1e, Mr . Gentile, without from anyone, and controry
to the purpos• oe a rule of thie Court , entered intc an with Qnited
Stat•9 Attornay the Southern of NIW York to refrain from examining
any witness in a hi9hly criminal proeecution uncil it had been termin-
In the fourth ca1e, one in which the facts to of conver-
sion; Mr, Gent ile; a close friend of the re1pondent who wa• th•n a Member of th•
DDC, cau1ad the termination of the 1nve1tigation and the olosins of tha file, not-
wi thstanding that the lilc as it then &too4 eontained sufficient to juatity
the public censurs of DOC
Lying to or misleading the chairman, the chairman's
poeiti on to a reepondent, into an unauthori zed agreement wi th a criminal
prosecutor that stifled a gpc inveutigatiQn at its inception, and eevering up the
mi1oonduct of a DOC member , • ?? for ?? dischar9•·
Fourth, e·xcept S:or the Roy cohn ease, during the a1x-year per1od. when Mr. Gen-
tile, in or absent from, the of a baeklog that ultimae•ly
almost doubled . Mr . Gentile, ae far as we have been able to wa6 not in-
volved 1n any of any case nor did he try a single case before a
hearini panel. Nor may it be claimed that Mr. Gentile W&l the counterpart o! a
dlatriat attorney who, an administrator, oannot or dinarily try cases .
Mr. Gentile was not the holder of a po,ition comparable to that * district at-
tornay. The ooc•e counsel holda a hands on poaition requiring least thQ
trial ot major • lt was learnod, before Mr . in 3uly
l988, that Mr . Quntile had not haa any cases • to him. On several occa-
s i ons, the matter waa a1•euesed by me wich the DDC chairman, togethe• w1en the
p•oblem of ••port$ to th• of Mr. Gentile's absences from hia office and his
•ooa Th• New tor k Law Pub. co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19 : 04 FAX
1/31/89NYU S, (col. 1)
1/3 t/89 N.Y.L.J. S, (col. 1)
failure to be engaged in CDC woxk in other The chairman himeelt often
could not contact Mr . Gentile. tor no ont at th@ noc knew where he W$9.
These reportu ot the absences and of Mr. Gentile caused me con-
cern upon the tiling with in Ootober 1988 of the cempla1nts of the Attor-
ney General of State of New York again1t c. vernoo Mason in the Brawley case,
a filing wa• made th• AttQrney G@neral in an extenaive release to
the pre••· Upon that filing, Mr, Qentile, repeatedly informed the Clerk of tha
Court that he, Mr. GentLle
was so frightened by the prospect of the Maaon matter
that he was incline4 to rind a way cf avoi4ing it . Indeed, Mr. Gentile had the
cases assigned not to himself but to a DCC attorney who waa told that that attor-
ney would in tact have noch1n9 eo do with it. The Committee should read that file
and determine the • of Mr. Gentile'• profeesional judgment ,
Aa to Mr. Gentile'S pereonal judgment, grave doubt about it ha4 ari•@n in Septem-
ber 1988 when a domplainant before the DDC 4rew in tha DDC office what wae identi-
!iad by a staff attorney as a gun, to use it unl••• h1e pending oom-
plainta were determined, and then left the ottioe. Court officers
were immediately •ummoned to the DDC. Theraatter, tha Clerk ot the Court inquired
of Mr. Gentile whether Gentilt would cause the • arrest. Mr . Gentilt
answered that hi would not do so bteault, he said, the gunm&n waa guilty ot only a
and, in any wvent, the gunman might ehoot Mr. Gent11• it hi oauses his
When told the gunman had committed erimes and that hi; arrest was ne-
oe•sary in of the staff and of the court Mr. Gentile refused to
authorize the art•lt of the gunman when police, having aei21d him that night,
call8d Mr. Gentile. it wa• necessary to dirace Gentile to place
the deciaion before the DDC chairman. Mr. who ordered that the matt•r be
taken to the office of the Di$trict Attorn@y, a etaff member of which ordered the
gunm-.n•s Arrest.
It was apparent to me that a chief coun•el whom we oould rarely locate, who ae•m-
ingly tried no ca&es, whose backlog oeemed permanant, whose staff lawyer& e•ll
from the • with an awe•intpLring frequency, unethical eon4uee in cer-
tain cases had caused alarm, who lacking 1n courage, waa not
a chief eoun•el of anything.
upon th• ground of inertia alone, Mr . o•ntile was dischargeable.
tn faot, on Jan. 4 he The New York Times that he had heen thinkins about
ro1i9ning before I aaked for hie reei;nation. He knew ot his danger of diaoharge
in or about March 1ges when h• waa intormed that I had intended to recommend a
very small increas@ in hia aalary. He was informed that he ahou1d not misread the
inoreaee. He was told that it was given to encourage him to conflicts about
hia work ana to   & would attract his ahould Mr. Q@nt i le
Copyright • 2008 The New York Law Pub. Co -
05/ 10/ 2008 19:05 FAX
1131/89 NYLJ S, (col. 1)
t/31/89 N.Y.L.J. $,(col. I)
Pago 6
As for Ms. Mesh••• the causes of diech•rge are at least s•varal. $ht knew of
Mr. Gent1lt
8 abandonment of hi• gublic office and did not di•oloaa it to the DOC
or Court, porhaps bacaus• it veeteo her with Mr. ?? which in 1983 had
come scandaloul. I have cause to believe that the overwhelming majority or Commit-
tee m•mb•r•, eager to work, ahared my that of the more than 1,200 docketed
matters only 25 had been heard in all of 1988, ana those 25 were spread among four
panels which sat a total of 51 days. surely Mr. Hynes muat have thought it odd
that he had uat only eight in Did noc wonder why the atatt was not
reducing tht backlog?
More persuasive for Ms. McShea's diacharge, wae the reputatioo earned by
Ms. McShea for of the legal and lay staff follcwini h•r *PPOintment
au deputy ohio! counsel. I sat forth a affidavit which purports to
• • •n aepect of M&. personality aa it existed wh8n she undertook
h•r ntw po•t ae deputy chi•t counuel. All comment• concerning Ms. McSh•a th•t I
thereatter heard w•r& consistent with the p•raonality outlineg in that artidavit,
a copy of which is available to any DCC member:
"[Name], an attorn•y duly admitted to practice in the State of New York,  
the tollowing under the penalty of perjuryt
"l, I am a Staff Attorney to Michael A, Gentile, Chie: • to the Department·
al Disciplinary Committee of the supreme Court ot the State of New York, Appellate
Divieion, First Ju4ioial Department, ang have been so employed eine$ B, 1980.
"a. Within the oftLcel the Departmental Disciplinary Committee, looat•d on the
floor of Madiaon Avenue, New York, New York, my own office space is loc-
ated immediat•ly n•xe eo and aajeining that occupied by the let Deputy Chief coun·
sel, and aharea one (l) with that oftice. The door frama cf that
offioe abutta the wall common to both officea, an4 the distartce from that door to
the door of my office ia about 10 feet.
3. April 6, 1987 the occupant of the • office. and the
First D•puty Couna•l to the Committee, w•• xoward Benjamin. After Mr . Sen-
jamin'a aeparture on April 6, 1987 pursuant to his r•signation, May 1,
1987, the office and title of First Deputy Ohi8! Counsel was •••umed sarah Di-
ane Mcshea.
4. I wae in my or! ice with Alan s. Phillips, an Anociate Attorn•y with the Com-
mittee Staff, on April 14. 1987, when Sarah Diane McShea knocked on the
door and requ•at•4 to speak to Alan S. Phillips. Mr. Phillips and I walked to the
door ol h•r oftice.
"S. the door jamb ot her office, and irt the presence of Mr. 'hillips
and myself, sarah Diane McShea displayed to Mr. Phillips a reterence inquiry form
which had b•en received in th• mail. form waA on 8 1/2 x 11 whit• paper, W1th
bold black type heading which read, 'Administrative Law Judge,• below that, in
Copyright • 200e The New York Law Pub. co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19:05 FAX
l/3lffl9 NYU 5, (col. 1)
l/31/89 N.Y.L.J. 5, {col. I)
lell eype. 'P•r•onal Raterenee Inquiry for JUdge PoeM
Selow that, in the oth@rwiae blank addr••• •paee of the form, appeared
'Mr. Howard Benjamin' along with the addresa ot the Committee.
6. sarah asked Mr. Ph:l.l.Hps, 'What should we d.o with this?' to which Mr. Phil-
lips responded that it shoula be given to Howard aenjamin for hia completion.
Sarah raaponded to the gince Howard waa no longer with the Committee,
and she had auaumad his position, ahe should till it out in her cap•eiey.
''7. Mr. Phillipa responded thlllt the form requested M:r: , Banjamin' s evaluation a• a
• • • • and wa• th•tetcre personal to Mr. Benjamin and not to hia title. That
at any rate, Mr, Benjamin was •still on the payroll' in the title of First Deputy
Chiet Counsel, Mr. that he had named Howar d Benjamin &i a refer-
ence because he and had known eaoh for eight years, regardless of
Howard's title.
"8. Ms. McShea insisted that the torm was received by her as Howard's succ•••c:
and that •he would complete it in that capacity with an explanation that Nr. Ben-
jamin bad resigned. Mr. Phillips repeated that the form wa& addre•aed to Howard
"9 . At that point Chief Counsel Michael A. Gentile the three of us and
inquirad as to what was going on. Both Sarah and Alan reiterated their positiona,
and Mr. Gentile walked away without anawering the que•tion.
10. At that point, Sarah had walked to the d.elk in her office. I b•g•n walking
toward the door my o!tice, and Phillips remained, ltandin; •tationary in
Sarah's otfie•, about 1 1/2 feet in t:em the doorjamb. Aa I walked away, an4
fore I wa• more two fe•t away, I heard Ma. McShea say, in a tone o! voice
that was a• much business aa it was conoiliatory, 'I'll tell you what
we'll do.' I stopped and turned around, as I wa• eurious to hear h6r proposal or
propoaed 'reaolution' to the situation .
"11, At that point ! heard Sarah Diane McShea s ay to Alan S. Phillips: 'I won' t
fuck you, but I want forty (40) closinss for this month and three (3) sets of new
":1.2. I did not see Mr. Phillips• reaction, his baoK wu to me, nor d1c1 I
hie responlt
if any, aa l turned and continued walking into my •
?? with the backlog wa• Ms. McShea•• oppressive use ot a quota system   at
l•ait my eye, mu•t staff and tended to victimize
plalnant$. In my   the impoait1cn and of a quota • •
cifically for production of dilmiaaal& of complaints were unethical aats of
which Mr. G8ntile knew and which neither he nor Ms. McShea informed t he DDC.
La•t, Ms. McSheA'• negative reaction to the appgintment of Mr. Brudie ••· among
2008 The New York Law Co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19 : 06 FAX
1/31/89 NYU S, (col. I)
1131/89 N.Y.L.J. S, (ool. 1)

ochtr things, liaison with thia Court, was of such a prolonged magnitude that I
her severance In my opinion. lht waa not a person to whom
over others ahoul4 bt 9ranted, and she had •••mingly identified heraolt with
Mr . Gentile's interesca. Aoaordingly, it did 1urprise me that Ms. MeShea•s
letter of resignation stated, in substance, that havini of Mr. Gentile's
resignation and having served "happily u s Oeputy," this was ••a propitious
time• to • • in order •to purtue n•w professional
Ae I sat through the l resignation with Mr. then
M•. MeShea, each knew and eoncealed a face that I did not knew an4 of which I
learned on Jan. ' when it was • • that, during Hal Lieberman, the
DOC lawyer aaaigned its major ca•e• of •ignificano8, had resigned,
effective at end af Janumry. on Jan. 4, M•. had met with the Clerk
of tht Court and had volunttered in the presanae of another attorney that he had
reaigned because th• of cases was • and, for lack of &ny planning
by Mr . Gentile &1\<1 Ms. McShea, the backlog "out o.t control." Further, be
atated that • aeaff waa • by the of Mr. Gentile and Ms .
Ther•after, Mr . Lieberman Met with me. In the preaence of two othar attorneys, he
volunteered to me the very same &tatemente concerning hia -- the back-
log was lacking •a Qomprehensive plan" and the staff waa Ndemoralized and alitn•
ated" by Mr . Gentile's and Ma. • • poor leadership. H8 8tated that import-
ant cases ehat •hould be tri$4 were in the files. It is etrikingly
significant chat, while in Decemb•r I been aonQidering the discharge of Mr.
Gentile and M•. McShea for reaeon8 which the backlog and a
•e•!!, Mr. Liebarman had • 4toided to resign those two reasons.
As to certain   • have been marketed to the praaa by Mr. Gentile or
Ms. McShea, or the both af them, I shall giv• brief answer• that they deaerve .
Ie it •aid that, particularly in Mr . aentile's case, he Wai removed from
his at 5 P.M. on Jan. 6, the day or a snow In the afternoon that
day, t he Clerk oe the court received a inquiry from a r•porter who
claimed that he had laarned ehat Mr. Gent11• had been ousted becauae of a reason
that the Clerk knew to be false . The Cl•rk told the that he woul4 eall
Mr. aentile and a•k him to call the r•porter. Upon •   asked to call the report-
er and af!irm or deny the cause for by the reporter, Mr. Gen•
tile r•peatedly ahoutea in a "I'M having a nervous
breakdown! I
m on the ot a nervous break4own! No comment• ta the press! No
comments to the press!"
The Clerk became alarmed that Mr . Qentil• wa• in that in the 39th floor
fice of the DDC, an offie• that was not fully eeaffed beaause of the unow •torm.
It be imprudent for Mr. Gentile eo deny under o•th the tel•phcne "conversa-
tion" )tad hy him with the Cl•rk on the afternoon of Jan. 45.
Copyright • The New York Law Pub. Co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19 : 06 FAX
_. .•. --· _..,..,. ., -- · '_ ..... ... ··-
1/31/89 NYU S, (col. 1)
1131/89 N.Y.L.J. !i, (col. 1)
The Clerk repor ted that conversation to me after Mr. a DOC attorney,
stated that, upon Mr. Gentile that he had had the otfice locks ahansed ana
that he would be g1o•ing th@ offioe at S P.M., Mr . Gentile said to Mr. th't
he would not leav• the office at that time but would stay until any hcur 4elire4
by him. In view of the report of Mr. Gentile's state and the 1mpoaeibility of pre-
dioting oonduet, I advi&ed Mr . Reynolda to direct Mr. to request the
entire staff th•n in the DOC office to leave at S P.M., •n4 to aek the court of-
fi¢er then on duty at the DDC to raqueet another court gf££cer to be when
the otfiQe was closed. Prcvi•ion f or the posting of a eourt otficer in the DDC of-
fiQe had been made by the Office of Court Administration since September 1988 in
consequence of Mt. Gentile's claim& that an officer was necaDDary beC«Q$e,
among other thinge, Mr. Gent il6 wa1 in 4an9er of attack by • lawyer who
hao been following him for montha . Accordingly, at 5 P.M., there was a brief,
peaaetul leaving of the DOC office by Mr . Gtntile Jnd Ms. McShea. NO officer
them out . None etoo4 by ehe desk of Mr. GantLlt or Mp , McShea ?? evicticn were in
Their • was to but, insofar aa IUCh may be ac-
by civility, they received it.
With respaat to the steinberg DDC matter, several are noteworthy.
First. Judioiary Law S90 drawl a curtain of sBcrecy only around those disciplin-
ary proaAedini• involving ateorn•ya who have been lawfully admitted to the Bar. iY
Lagialature intended to protect only tht reputations of such attgrn•t'
againat the damage or unproved charges ; a rational eou14 never have
intended to extend contidentiality to parson• like Steinberg who had aeoured their
to tho aer by fraud. Hence , the Steinberg file not a motion
for its r eleaae the publ ic.
second, tha News did not mysteriously learn of the St einberg • and then
reque•t it. In its issue Nov. 6. 1987, the Newa publ ished an atticl• concerning
thQ l9B3 post-conviction claims of Steinberi's client, John Novak, and
wit•, that Steinberg Wll addicted to when he rapreaented Novak in a
federal narcot1Qe trial. The•• w•• whan, more than ona year
the Newa on 22, 1988 made a reQQeut of thie Cour t for an examin&tien ot the
s file concetnin9 • complaint, a request made by the Newe dur-
ing a ewe w•ek adjour nment in the Steinber g oriminal trial.
Third, Mr. Gentile's ro•isnation was not requ••ted solely becauee hie in-
defensible handling of the Steinberg case. 1he o! Mr . Gentile was
cided upgn be!ore the Dec. 22 requeut of the Daily News for an of the
Steinberg file.
The N@W York Times on Jan, 5 an interview of Mr. Gentile to-
gether witb a photograph o! him takBn in his DDC o!fice. Ths Timea article quoted
Mr. GQntil• •• having the DOC ' s handling of the St•inberg matter
terrific In an•wer t hat the Court state4 that it •waa

2008 The New YorK Law Pub. Co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19:07 FAX
1/31/89 NYU 5
(col. 1)
1/31/89 N.Y.L.J. 5
(col. 1)
Page 10
  .... .... ...,
of another opi nion. •• Mr. G•ntile had blundered inc:re4ibly in reconunending that the
complaint in Steinberg be diemissed.
The DOC might considet appointing a subcommittee to read the Steinberg file anQ
to • whether the te•timony of three par•ona, Mr. and Mrs. Novak Mark
Ames, who have to Steinberg'& gooaine addiction, together with
lt•inberg•e invocation of hi• privilege against ael:·1ner1m1nation in answer to
any questions • oocaine , including h1a addiction to cocaine, would not
have the DDC to move immediately to suspend Steinberg. According to the
Times ana the New Journal, Prof•IICt Gillers of New York •
echool of Law thinks thae euapen1ion would have followed. If ehat ia
the opinion of the subcommittee, the DOC should reaa the Times• Jan. S report of
it• Jan, 4 intervi@W of Mr . • Mr. Oantil• aaid ot Novaks, whom he
hAd n•v•r m•t, "It is quite common for disgruntled clients to make soma-sort of
ettort to attack their lawyers' performance," There is no evidence in the Stein-
berg tile that tne Nevalts were "diflgrurteled."
The Tim•• article stated that Mr . Gentile "said the Novaka lost interest in h•lp-
ini official• make a case against Mr. Stcinberg,N these?? wordl of
our former chiaf in whose office tne had awaiting de-
termination from November 1983 through October 1986 and who waa this Court•s
direct10rt to unwill1ng witnesses, such as th• Ncvak•, to appear {Rule
605 . 9). The Novaks been ideal witneetel they had testified in
the 19$3 federal proceeding that Steinberg apparently was addicted
to aooaine. tranaoripts were part o! the $teinberg file when Mr. Gentile re-
• • the dismissal cf the complaint.
AI the third witn••• Steinberg, Mr. the Times reported that Mr.
Gentil• •aid that Ames "w•• not reliable.• Mr. a•ntile had never mat Mr. Ameo , and
Chere is no evid•nae in the file chat Am•• waa unraliabl•.
Ie there any of the ODC who woul4 have kept in hie • a lawyer who had
made the • statement• that Mr . had mad• to th• Times on Jan. •?
La1t1 the nature of the r•lationsnip between the DDC and the needa to be
The DDC i• the Court
s Ita ataff is of
servant• whem the Committe• hal n'ithtr the power to •ppoint nor to di6eharge. The
Ceurt has those • an4, in the case of nencompetitiv@ confi4•ntial •
euch as the chitf couneel and 4•puty chiet counsel, • not assign any d•uae
to the DOC or to anyone else. Tnie broad ?? tor many one of
volves the for the exerci&e Qf diAoretion in decidini who is desirable
tor the execution ot sensitive powera.
?? basis for the re1ignationa reque•ted by me, you muet aak yourself whather your
acceptance ot your waa subject to the condition that the court exer-
Copyriihe t 200A New Ycrk Law Pub. Co.
05/ 10/ 2008 19 : 08 FAX
l /31/89 NYU $.(col. I)
Jl3l/89N,Y.L.J. S, (col. 1)
Page 11
oi se ita discretion in discharging DOC employeee only ways acceptable to you.
Put another your commitment to serve the interest could not have been
made   a mat t er whol ly within the Coutt ' l To say otherwise
would be to Gay that your appointment is subject tc the Court's opinion concerning
the wagea you pay your •mployees, a condition that would surprise you, to say
nothing of your
However , shoula you think that I am right, cr that certain ieeuee are seemingly
unresolv&ble, or that you nave • your discretion in way
but for th• $ame purposes, or that Committ ee's involvement in the r••igna-
tions of Mr . Gentile MJ, McShea has shown why it ia not the proper business of
this committee to review a di s c retion vested by law aolely in this court. then X
invite you to • • the wor k of Committee which has enjoyed a • un•
eb&re4 by Jny other in the nation. our tfferee lhould be in the
of what is and not in the direotlon of what is de-
structive and d1Vi8ive,
NYW !, (col. l)
2008 The New Yor k Law Pub. Co.