In re Hill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Hill

46 A.D.2d 330, 362 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 330 (In re Hill) 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 Hill, 46 A.D.2d 330, 362 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the Second Judicial Department .in 1948. The Referee found that the two charges of professional misconduct lodged against the respondent were sustained. The evidence established that respondent failed to process an adoption proceeding after having been retained and having received a substantial amount of his fee on account. Further, it was also established that after another client discharged respondent and recovered a judgment for return of the legal fees, respondent failed to satisfy the judgment. Accordingly, the report of the Referee is confirmed and the crossjnotion denied.

[331]*331Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings (Matter of Hill, 12 A D 2d 14). Although it does not appear that respondent intentionally disregarded his clients’ interests, nevertheless, the record demonstrates his gross neglect of matters entrusted to him. In this respect we note that such may have occurred because respondent undertook representation in areas of the law with which he was not familiar. Accordingly, under all the circumstances, we have limited the sanction to a period of suspension of six months.

Lupiano, J. P., Stetter, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law for a period of six months, effective January 30, 1975.

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 Second Judicial Department .in 1948. The Referee found that the two charges of professional misconduct lodged against the respondent were sustained. The evidence established that respondent failed to process an adoption proceeding after having been retained and having received a substantial amount of his fee on account. Further, it was also established that after another client discharged respondent and recovered a judgment for return of the legal fees, respondent failed to satisfy the judgment. Accordingly, the report of the Referee is confirmed and the crossjnotion denied.

[331]*331Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings (Matter of Hill, 12 A D 2d 14). Although it does not appear that respondent intentionally disregarded his clients’ interests, nevertheless, the record demonstrates his gross neglect of matters entrusted to him. In this respect we note that such may have occurred because respondent undertook representation in areas of the law with which he was not familiar. Accordingly, under all the circumstances, we have limited the sanction to a period of suspension of six months.

Lupiano, J. P., Stetter, Tilzer, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law for a period of six months, effective January 30, 1975.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 330, 362 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hill-nyappdiv-1974.