In re Casey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Casey

75 A.D.2d 664, 426 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11135

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

DecidedApril 9, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 75 A.D.2d 664 (In re Casey) 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 Casey, 75 A.D.2d 664, 426 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on October 18, 1954. Petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Hearing Judge which sustained two charges of professional misconduct consisting of neglect of a collection matter and failure to co-operate with petitioner in its investigation of an inquiry concerning the collection matter. The record supports the findings of the Hearing Judge and petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted. An attorney is obligated to co-operate with the committee charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints concerning his conduct. Indeed, "Full and forthright co-operation with the committee is essential to the proper performance of its function, and the withholding of such co-operation without cause must be judged a grave disservice to the public interest.” (Matter of Hubscher, 25 AD2d 113, 114.) Here respondent, [665]*665by his failure to promptly furnish petitioner with a written response to a relatively minor complaint, provoked the more serious charge of failure to co-operate. Under all the circumstances, we determine that respondent should be censured for his misconduct. Respondent censured. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.

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

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on October 18, 1954. Petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Hearing Judge which sustained two charges of professional misconduct consisting of neglect of a collection matter and failure to co-operate with petitioner in its investigation of an inquiry concerning the collection matter. The record supports the findings of the Hearing Judge and petitioner’s motion to confirm the report is granted. An attorney is obligated to co-operate with the committee charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints concerning his conduct. Indeed, "Full and forthright co-operation with the committee is essential to the proper performance of its function, and the withholding of such co-operation without cause must be judged a grave disservice to the public interest.” (Matter of Hubscher, 25 AD2d 113, 114.) Here respondent, [665]*665by his failure to promptly furnish petitioner with a written response to a relatively minor complaint, provoked the more serious charge of failure to co-operate. Under all the circumstances, we determine that respondent should be censured for his misconduct. Respondent censured. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Casey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.D.2d 664, 426 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-casey-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack