In re David

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re David

281 A.D. 509, 120 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077

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

DecidedApril 21, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D. 509 (In re David) 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 David, 281 A.D. 509, 120 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These attorneys practice under the firm name of “ David & Josiah ”, although they assert that, as between themselves, they are not partners. The learned Beferee, to whom numerous charges against respondents or either of them had been referred, reported that, in every instance in which proof was offered, charges have been sustained that respondents-grossly violated the canons of professional ethics, that they misrepresented to clients the status of their cases to conceal their own negligence, and that on a number of occasions they converted clients ’ funds to their own use, although in the latter case, restitution was generally made but under pressure during extended periods of time. The evidence supports the findings of the Official Beferee. Both respondents should be disbarred.

Dore, J. P., Cohh, Yah Yoorhis and Breitel, JJ., concur.

Bespondents disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

These attorneys practice under the firm name of “ David & Josiah ”, although they assert that, as between themselves, they are not partners. The learned Beferee, to whom numerous charges against respondents or either of them had been referred, reported that, in every instance in which proof was offered, charges have been sustained that respondents-grossly violated the canons of professional ethics, that they misrepresented to clients the status of their cases to conceal their own negligence, and that on a number of occasions they converted clients ’ funds to their own use, although in the latter case, restitution was generally made but under pressure during extended periods of time. The evidence supports the findings of the Official Beferee. Both respondents should be disbarred.

Dore, J. P., Cohh, Yah Yoorhis and Breitel, JJ., concur.

Bespondents disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 509, 120 N.Y.S.2d 558, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-nyappdiv-1953.