Aba Center For Professional Responsibility: Fill & Download for Free

“How long after being disbarred in NY can an attorney reapply?”Seven years.The traditional rule used to be that disbarment was permanent, but that is no longer the case in New York and most other U.S. jurisdictions. A New York attorney who has been disbarred, either based on a felony conviction or for misconduct, may apply for reinstatement after seven years from the date of the disbarment.According to statistics published by the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, Standing Committee on Professional Discipline, very few lawyers in New York have been reinstated after disbarment. The exact numbers from the most recent years for which the ABA has published statistics are:2017 = 42016 = 112015 = 92014 = 52013 = 3By way of comparison, the number of licensed attorneys in New York ranged between 166,317 and 177,035 during this same five-year period.

To answer both of your questions, the civil legality varies from one government to another. But the law of the Church always prohibits the violation of the sacramental seal (see below) of the Sacrament of Confession (a.k.a. Penance and Reconciliation.) And this is not considered the aiding or abetting of a criminal by the Church—even though a civil authority could deem it such. Allow me to explain.The law of the Church (Canon Law) forbids such a disclosure and calls for the severe punishment of a priest who violates this seal. The priest (and in rare cases, the interpreter assisting a priest) cannot disclose what a penitent tells him under the seal of the Confession:Can. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.Can. 984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.(Code of Canon Law, Canons 983 and 984, accessed at the online Vatican archive, Code of Canon Law)The law of a particular country or state can attempt to require a breach of the seal of the Confession. However, the priest would be obliged to violate such a statute, and undergo any civil or criminal penalty—including incarceration, torture, or death—rather than violate the seal of the Confession.Can. 1388 §1. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; one who does so only indirectly is to be punished according to the gravity of the delict.§2. An interpreter and the others mentioned in ⇒ can. 983, §2 who violate the secret are to be punished with a just penalty, not excluding excommunication.(Code of Canon Law, Can. 1388, Code of Canon Law)To violate the penitent-priest seal would undercut the very nature of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation. This sacrament involves a penitent sinner (one who is sorry for his or her sins), asking for God’s forgiveness.) It is precisely the moment in which these words of Jesus become relevant:If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.(John 20:23, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), accessed at Bible Gateway passage: John 20:23 - New Revised Standard Version)Or, as St. John wrote:If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.(1 John 1:8–9, NRSV, Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 1:8-10 - New Revised Standard Version, emphasis added.)That is why a priest would rather die than violate this seal. Confession is regarded as a divine institution, established by Jesus Christ.In the secular world, there is something roughly analogous to this—the attorney-client privilege. According to the American Bar Association (ABA):The principle of confidentiality is set out in the legal ethics rules in each jurisdiction and in ABA Model Rule 1.6. Model Rule 1.6 Comment [2] states: “A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client's informed consent, the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation. ... This contributes to the trust that is the hallmark of the client-lawyer relationship.” A violation of the ethics rule may lead to disciplinary sanctions.(Sue Michmerhuizen, “Confidentiality, Privilege: A Basic Value in Two Different Applications,” ABA, Center for Professional Responsibility, May, 2017, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/confidentiality_or_attorney.authcheckdam.pdf)There is another analogous privilege within the secular sphere. The journalist’s protection of his or her confidential source:Roughly 30 states have passed statutes, called shield laws, allowing journalists to refuse to disclose or testify about confidential or unpublished information, including the identity of sources. The statutes vary significantly from state to state in the scope of their protections…(Jonathan Peters, “Shield Laws and Journalist’s Privilege: Basics Every Journalist Should Know,” Quill, Nov. 11, 2016, in the Society for Professional Journalism website, Shield Laws and Journalist’s Privilege: Basics Every Journalist Should Know)I hope this answer helps!

You have the right to a speedy trial.“all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation…” -6th Amendment of the US ConstitutionThis means that you have the right to a speedy trial. But, what does the term “speedy” mean?“In many jurisdictions, the prosecution generally has 60 to 120 days to bring an imprisoned defendant to trial..”- LegalMatchEach jurisdiction has its own rules about time limitations for speedy trial.Can the right to speedy trial be implicitly waved?As found in Barker vs Wingo 407 US 514 (1972)“Yes. Justice Lewis F. Powell delivered the unanimous opinion. The Court held that the right to a speedy trial differs from other constitutionally guaranteed rights because it is often more in the interest of society and the justice system as a whole than it is in the interest of the accused. Additionally, there is no way to create a firm distinction between what is and is not a speedy trial, since the circumstances surrounding each trial are unique. The Court held that the consideration of whether a defendant was denied a speedy trial should be based on the length of the delay, the reason for it, the defendant’s assertion of the right, and prejudice towards the defendant. The Court held that, while the delay was long, Barker faced negligible prejudice and did not want a speedy trial, as evidenced by the many continuances that went uncontested.”- OyezIn Doggett vs United States 505 U.S. 647 the Court ruled that an eight and one half year delay between indictment and prosecution does violate a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial.In Klopfer vs North Carolina 386 US 213 (1967) “Peter, acting as his own counsel, argued the case in the Hillsborough courthouse. The outcome was a hung jury. The prosecutor used a little known and unusual tactic called "nolle prosequi with leave." This ploy allowed him to reserve the right to try Peter at any time, holding the threat of prosecution over his head in perpetuity.He and several others spent the winter night in an unheated jail cell. The case, tried before an all white jury, initially ended in a mistrial. The prosecutors refused to retry the case, which left Peter in a legal limbo and jeopardized his career at Duke. This lead Dr. Klopfer to initiate a legal action, "Klopfer v. North Carolina."The case was ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of Klopfer, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Earl Warren.” -Carolina Friends SchoolThese cases illustrate that though an individual has the right to speedy trial, that right is far more ambiguous than the constitutional text indicates. Why did the case take over a year to prosecute? What were the causes of delay? Did you or your attorney contest the continuances? Did you or your attorney request any continuances yourselves? Did you explicitly or implicitly wave your right to speedy trial?Were there other issues besides the delay that were wrongful in the prosecution of your case?For example I fought a battery case pro se where the DA lied to the court about my court appearance record and their attempt to contact me to let me know that I even had charges in my bond hearing. Then they refused to let me into the law library and refused to give me video evidence requested in my motion for discovery. Then the DA's witnesses (a county jail guard and a detective) lied on the stand contradicting their own reports and the government's evidence. Then it turned out that the video evidence that the prosecution refused to let me see before trial was edited.So, there are numerous issues that can arise. From the bond hearing, to preliminary hearings, to the trial itself. If the prosecution violated the procedures, if it lied, if there was perjury, etc then you can contact the ABA Center For Professional ResponsibilityCenter for Professional Responsibility321 North Clark StreetChicago IL, 60654312-988-5763If you feel that your right to speedy trial was violated or other issues of your prosecution wrongfully violated your civil rights then you should contact an attorney about filing a civil rights case.Edit: link to the LegalMatch article on speedy trial. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/right-to-a-speedy-trial-in-criminal-cases.html