In re Fries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Fries

38 A.D.2d 404, 330 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 30, 1972·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department in November, 1936. A Referee has found that two charges of professional misconduct lodged against respondent have been sustained. The evidence as to the first charge demonstrated that respondent neglected to prosecute a personal injury action. In the second charge, it was alleged that respondent failed to respond to inquiries from the Committee on Grievances. The report of the Referee is confirmed. The respondent has been admitted to practice for over 35 years, and this appears to be the only charge ever brought against him. Nevertheless, respondent’s inexcusable neglect of his client’s cause constitutes misconduct which cannot be condoned. We do not find it necessary to consider the charge of failure to co-operate.

Respondent should be suspended for a period of one year.

The court expresses its appreciation to Richard A. Nachman, Esq. for his services as assigned counsel for respondent.

Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for one year effective May 1, 1972.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Judicial Department in November, 1936. A Referee has found that two charges of professional misconduct lodged against respondent have been sustained. The evidence as to the first charge demonstrated that respondent neglected to prosecute a personal injury action. In the second charge, it was alleged that respondent failed to respond to inquiries from the Committee on Grievances. The report of the Referee is confirmed. The respondent has been admitted to practice for over 35 years, and this appears to be the only charge ever brought against him. Nevertheless, respondent’s inexcusable neglect of his client’s cause constitutes misconduct which cannot be condoned. We do not find it necessary to consider the charge of failure to co-operate.

Respondent should be suspended for a period of one year.

The court expresses its appreciation to Richard A. Nachman, Esq. for his services as assigned counsel for respondent.

Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, McNally, Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for one year effective May 1, 1972.

In re Fries, 38 A.D.2d 404, 330 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5049 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

38 A.D.2d 404 (In re Fries) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related