In re Hazelwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hazelwood

163 A.D. 869, 147 N.Y.S. 1116

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

DecidedApril 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D. 869 (In re Hazelwood) 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 Hazelwood, 163 A.D. 869, 147 N.Y.S. 1116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

The acceptance of a retainer, against the interests of the estate for which respondent was acting as attorney, was a grave breach of his professional obligations. Had not the executrix been restored to her original position by the repayment of all the estate funds, respondent would be subject to the penalty of suspension. However, in view of his deposit to the credit of the executrix of $1,207.60 — the full subject-matter distributed by respondent in the alleged settlement — a payment made with large loss to himself—showing respondent’s efforts in good faith to make full amends; and having regard also to the public criticism which he has received, and the warning for the future which this indiscretion will furnish, no further penalty or discipline will be imposed. Present—Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.; Burr, J., taking no part.

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

The acceptance of a retainer, against the interests of the estate for which respondent was acting as attorney, was a grave breach of his professional obligations. Had not the executrix been restored to her original position by the repayment of all the estate funds, respondent would be subject to the penalty of suspension. However, in view of his deposit to the credit of the executrix of $1,207.60 — the full subject-matter distributed by respondent in the alleged settlement — a payment made with large loss to himself—showing respondent’s efforts in good faith to make full amends; and having regard also to the public criticism which he has received, and the warning for the future which this indiscretion will furnish, no further penalty or discipline will be imposed. Present—Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.; Burr, J., taking no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D. 869, 147 N.Y.S. 1116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hazelwood-nyappdiv-1914.