Spevack v. Klein
| Spevack v. Klein | |
|---|---|
| Argued November 7, 1966 Decided January 16, 1967 | |
| Full case name | Samuel Spevack v. Solomon A. Klein |
| Citations | 385 U.S. 511 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| 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) |
| Holding | |
| The Self-incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to an attorney invoking it against a state through a state bar association, and its assertion cannot be grounds for disbarment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Douglas, joined by Warren, Black, Brennan, Fortas |
| Concurrence | Fortas (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Harlan, joined by Clark, Stewart |
| Dissent | White |
| Laws applied | |
| V Amendment, Self-incrimination Clause | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117 (1961) | |
Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511 (1967) was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held in a plurality decision that the Self-incrimination Clause of the 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, 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".