In re Horwitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Horwitz

256 A.D. 160, 9 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4664

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 20, 1939·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It has been conclusively established that the respondent has been guilty of the practice of accepting retainers, signed in blank, from two laymen whom he knew as “ runners ” engaged in the business of soliciting negligence cases for attorneys, and that he, either before or after the settlement or other disposition of said cases, paid money to the “ runners ” as compensation for said retainers. The respondent confessedly accepted thirteen such retainers, twelve of which were accepted between May, 1935, and September, 1936.

He should be disbarred.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

It has been conclusively established that the respondent has been guilty of the practice of accepting retainers, signed in blank, from two laymen whom he knew as “ runners ” engaged in the business of soliciting negligence cases for attorneys, and that he, either before or after the settlement or other disposition of said cases, paid money to the “ runners ” as compensation for said retainers. The respondent confessedly accepted thirteen such retainers, twelve of which were accepted between May, 1935, and September, 1936.

He should be disbarred.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Respondent disbarred.

In re Horwitz, 256 A.D. 160, 9 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

256 A.D. 160 (In re Horwitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related