In re Leibowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Leibowitz

82 A.D.2d 646, 442 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11848

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 646 (In re Leibowitz) 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 Leibowitz, 82 A.D.2d 646, 442 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 21, 1961 under the name of Gerald Leibowitz.

In this proceeding to discipline the respondent for professional misconduct, he was charged with eight allegations of misconduct. The Referee sustained the following charges of misconduct: (1) failing to properly communicate with his clients in that he did not return telephone calls, attend appointments or see to the effective return of a file to his clients upon request (charge three, subd 3) and (2) neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, paying that client a sum of money in consideration of the client’s withdrawal of [647]*647the complaint the client filed against respondent with the petitioner Grievance Committee, and failing to properly file a retainer statement with the Judicial Conference (charge seven).

The Referee failed to sustain, inter alia, an allegation charging respondent with failing to co-operate with the petitioner Grievance Committee, the Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts and the Nassau County Bar Association Grievance Committee in their respective investigations of the complaints herein (charge eight). The respondent has moved to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the report of the Referee. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in agreement with the Referee’s sustaining of subdivision 3 of charge three, and charge seven. However, we disagree with the Referee’s failure to sustain charge eight. We find ample evidence of respondent’s failure to co-operate. The remaining charges should be dismissed.

The respondent’s motion to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the Referee’s report is granted only to the extent that charges one, two, three (subds 1, 2 and 4), four, five and six are not sustained and said motion is otherwise denied.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances raised by respondent. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Hopkins, J.P., Lazer, Gibbons, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 21, 1961 under the name of Gerald Leibowitz.

In this proceeding to discipline the respondent for professional misconduct, he was charged with eight allegations of misconduct. The Referee sustained the following charges of misconduct: (1) failing to properly communicate with his clients in that he did not return telephone calls, attend appointments or see to the effective return of a file to his clients upon request (charge three, subd 3) and (2) neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him, paying that client a sum of money in consideration of the client’s withdrawal of [647]*647the complaint the client filed against respondent with the petitioner Grievance Committee, and failing to properly file a retainer statement with the Judicial Conference (charge seven).

The Referee failed to sustain, inter alia, an allegation charging respondent with failing to co-operate with the petitioner Grievance Committee, the Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts and the Nassau County Bar Association Grievance Committee in their respective investigations of the complaints herein (charge eight). The respondent has moved to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the report of the Referee. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit in opposition to the motion.

After reviewing all of the evidence, we are in agreement with the Referee’s sustaining of subdivision 3 of charge three, and charge seven. However, we disagree with the Referee’s failure to sustain charge eight. We find ample evidence of respondent’s failure to co-operate. The remaining charges should be dismissed.

The respondent’s motion to confirm in part and disaffirm in part the Referee’s report is granted only to the extent that charges one, two, three (subds 1, 2 and 4), four, five and six are not sustained and said motion is otherwise denied.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline to be imposed, we have taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances raised by respondent. Accordingly, the respondent should be, and he hereby is, censured for his misconduct.

Hopkins, J.P., Lazer, Gibbons, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.2d 646, 442 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leibowitz-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack