In re Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Katz

31 A.D.2d 50, 295 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2805

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 50 (In re Katz) 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 Katz, 31 A.D.2d 50, 295 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in this Department December 5, 1955.

The Referee has found that the three charges preferred against respondent have been sustained, and the record amply supports the findings, which are confirmed. The charges demonstrate neglect of clients’ matters in two instances as well as lack of co-operation in the investigation of respondent’s professional misconduct.

Respondent has urged as mitigating circumstances distress and distractions suffered by respondent as a result of a breakup [51]*51of Ms engagement to marry and Ms and Ms parents’ illnesses. Although these distractions and disabilities interfered with and at times may have interrupted respondent’s ability to devote the required attention to his professional duties and obligations, they were not of such a continuous, incessant and unremitting nature as to justify the unprofessional conduct underlying the charges.

A proper regard for the protection of the public would indicate that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.

Botein, P. J., Stevens, MoGtvern, Rabin and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months effective January 3,1969.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in this Department December 5, 1955.

The Referee has found that the three charges preferred against respondent have been sustained, and the record amply supports the findings, which are confirmed. The charges demonstrate neglect of clients’ matters in two instances as well as lack of co-operation in the investigation of respondent’s professional misconduct.

Respondent has urged as mitigating circumstances distress and distractions suffered by respondent as a result of a breakup [51]*51of Ms engagement to marry and Ms and Ms parents’ illnesses. Although these distractions and disabilities interfered with and at times may have interrupted respondent’s ability to devote the required attention to his professional duties and obligations, they were not of such a continuous, incessant and unremitting nature as to justify the unprofessional conduct underlying the charges.

A proper regard for the protection of the public would indicate that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months.

Botein, P. J., Stevens, MoGtvern, Rabin and McNally, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of six months effective January 3,1969.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 50, 295 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-katz-nyappdiv-1968.