In re Brotman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Brotman

108 A.D.2d 398, 489 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47076

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

DecidedMay 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 A.D.2d 398 (In re Brotman) 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 Brotman, 108 A.D.2d 398, 489 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, First Department, on March 14,1955. In this proceeding to discipline respondent for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and the respondent cross-moves to disaffirm said report.

The Special Referee sustained charges of professional misconduct, alleging that respondent forged or caused to be forged the names of his clients to a general release and to a settlement check of $10,000; that respondent deposited said check bearing the forged indorsement into his bank account, which account then fell below $10,000 despite the fact that respondent had not disbursed any of these funds to his client, thus converting said moneys to his own use; and that respondent charged his clients an illegal and clearly excessive fee when he sent them a check in the amount of $1,500 “in settlement of all claims”. The Special Referee also granted petitioner’s motion to conform the plead[399]*399ings to the proof, added an additional charge of misconduct, and sustained that charge.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in agreement with the report of the Special Referee except for his sustaining the additional charge of misconduct which was not included in the petition containing the charges of professional misconduct. Respondent is guilty of the serious professional misconduct set forth above. Petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted except as to the added charge and respondent’s cross motion to disaffirm the referee’s report is denied to the extent indicated above.

Accordingly, respondent should be, and hereby is, disbarred and his name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by the Appellate Division, First Department, on March 14,1955. In this proceeding to discipline respondent for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Special Referee and the respondent cross-moves to disaffirm said report.

The Special Referee sustained charges of professional misconduct, alleging that respondent forged or caused to be forged the names of his clients to a general release and to a settlement check of $10,000; that respondent deposited said check bearing the forged indorsement into his bank account, which account then fell below $10,000 despite the fact that respondent had not disbursed any of these funds to his client, thus converting said moneys to his own use; and that respondent charged his clients an illegal and clearly excessive fee when he sent them a check in the amount of $1,500 “in settlement of all claims”. The Special Referee also granted petitioner’s motion to conform the plead[399]*399ings to the proof, added an additional charge of misconduct, and sustained that charge.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in agreement with the report of the Special Referee except for his sustaining the additional charge of misconduct which was not included in the petition containing the charges of professional misconduct. Respondent is guilty of the serious professional misconduct set forth above. Petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Special Referee is granted except as to the added charge and respondent’s cross motion to disaffirm the referee’s report is denied to the extent indicated above.

Accordingly, respondent should be, and hereby is, disbarred and his name is ordered stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective forthwith.

Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano, Gibbons and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 398, 489 N.Y.S.2d 352, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-brotman-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack