In re Diamond
279 A.D. 7, 106 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 1951·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
Respondent admits that he improperly commingled funds of a client with his own funds. However, all money has now been properly accounted for by respondent who has been frank in his statements to the G-rievance Committee of the Bar Association. The facts not being in dispute, there is no need of a reference of this matter. The court is of opinion that, in view of mitigating circumstances, a censure will be sufficient punishment.
The respondent should be censured.
Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Shientag, JJ., concur.
Bespondent censured.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re Diamond, 279 A.D. 7, 106 N.Y.S.2d 919, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).
279 A.D. 7 (In re Diamond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re Tighe
282 A.D. 264 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1953)