In re Brennan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brennan

29 A.D.2d 19, 285 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2851

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 5, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 19 (In re Brennan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Brennan, 29 A.D.2d 19, 285 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2851 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1946. He was charged with professional misconduct within the meaning of section 90 of the Judiciary Law and in violation of Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by the petitioner, the Association of the Bar, in that on August 10, 1966, he /as convicted upon Ms plea of guilty to the misdemeanor of failing to file a Federal income tax return. Respondent was sentenced to serve nine months and was fined $5,000. He paid the fine and served Ms sentence.

The Referee has reported that the circumstances advanced by the respondent are insufficient to excuse his failure to file his income tax return and he finds the charge established.

[20]*20The report of the Referee is confirmed.

The misdemeanor as to which the respondent pleaded guilty constitutes unprofessional conduct (Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics). No other charge of professional misconduct has been made against respondent during his 21 years of practice, but we must be mindful of the fact that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. One of these conditions is that attorneys must be held to a high standard of conduct. Respondent has violated this condition and in the circumstances is guilty of professional misconduct. It follows that discipline is indicated and respondent should be suspended for six months.

Stevens, J. P., Eager, Stetter, Telzer and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months effective January 5,1968.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1946. He was charged with professional misconduct within the meaning of section 90 of the Judiciary Law and in violation of Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics by the petitioner, the Association of the Bar, in that on August 10, 1966, he /as convicted upon Ms plea of guilty to the misdemeanor of failing to file a Federal income tax return. Respondent was sentenced to serve nine months and was fined $5,000. He paid the fine and served Ms sentence.

The Referee has reported that the circumstances advanced by the respondent are insufficient to excuse his failure to file his income tax return and he finds the charge established.

[20]*20The report of the Referee is confirmed.

The misdemeanor as to which the respondent pleaded guilty constitutes unprofessional conduct (Canons 29 and 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics). No other charge of professional misconduct has been made against respondent during his 21 years of practice, but we must be mindful of the fact that membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. One of these conditions is that attorneys must be held to a high standard of conduct. Respondent has violated this condition and in the circumstances is guilty of professional misconduct. It follows that discipline is indicated and respondent should be suspended for six months.

Stevens, J. P., Eager, Stetter, Telzer and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months effective January 5,1968.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 19, 285 N.Y.S.2d 147, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brennan-nyappdiv-1967.