In re Attorney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Attorney

248 A.D. 922

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 1936·Published

Opinion

The court takes this occasion to emphasize anew that champerty, maintenance, ambulance chasing and solicitation of business by attorneys are serious offenses against the public welfare, and that it is the duty of the court to take active steps to eradicate such evils. (Matter of Bar Assn., 222 App. Div. 580.) With this end in view, it.is deemed proper to issue timely warning that, in the discharge of its duty, increasingly severe penalties will be imposed, if necessary in proper cases in the future, to the end that these abuses shall be corrected. The attorney is censured, and his conduct disapproved. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The court takes this occasion to emphasize anew that champerty, maintenance, ambulance chasing and solicitation of business by attorneys are serious offenses against the public welfare, and that it is the duty of the court to take active steps to eradicate such evils. (Matter of Bar Assn., 222 App. Div. 580.) With this end in view, it.is deemed proper to issue timely warning that, in the discharge of its duty, increasingly severe penalties will be imposed, if necessary in proper cases in the future, to the end that these abuses shall be corrected. The attorney is censured, and his conduct disapproved. Present — Hill, P. J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

In re Attorney, 248 A.D. 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

248 A.D. 922 (In re Attorney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related