In re Dobbertin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Dobbertin

91 A.D.2d 264, 458 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16122

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 31, 1983·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice law by this court on December 6, 1967 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Syracuse, New York. Petitioner alleges two charges of misconduct: (1) that respondent engaged in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and (2) that he commingled and converted clients’ funds.

The referee appointed by this court to find and report the facts found that respondent, in the course of his practice, and without authorization from his client, settled an outstanding claim, forged his client’s name to two general releases and notarized the false signatures. Upon receipt of the settlement check payable to the client, respondent caused the check to be falsely indorsed and deposited to his own use.

[265]*265Our review of the record confirms the finding of the referee. The misconduct is serious and warrants that respondent be disbarred.

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.

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 law by this court on December 6, 1967 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Syracuse, New York. Petitioner alleges two charges of misconduct: (1) that respondent engaged in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and (2) that he commingled and converted clients’ funds.

The referee appointed by this court to find and report the facts found that respondent, in the course of his practice, and without authorization from his client, settled an outstanding claim, forged his client’s name to two general releases and notarized the false signatures. Upon receipt of the settlement check payable to the client, respondent caused the check to be falsely indorsed and deposited to his own use.

[265]*265Our review of the record confirms the finding of the referee. The misconduct is serious and warrants that respondent be disbarred.

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ., concur.

Order of disbarment entered.

In re Dobbertin, 91 A.D.2d 264, 458 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

91 A.D.2d 264 (In re Dobbertin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related