In re London

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re London

34 A.D.2d 322, 311 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4442

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

DecidedJune 18, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 322 (In re London) 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 London, 34 A.D.2d 322, 311 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4442 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Association of the Bar, moves to confirm the report of the Referee. It appears that respondent was admitted to practice in 1959. Various complaints against respondent were received by petitioner and an interview was had in October, 1966. At the interview respondent agreed to produce certain files. He never did, nor has petitioner or any of the former clients who complained been able to get in touch with him since. He served no answer to the petition, and did not appear before the Referee.

The six charges are based on gross neglect of the matters entrusted to respondent by four different clients. Of these charges, one was not pursued by petitioner due to absence of the complaining client. In the other instances, not only neglect but substantial loss to the clients was established.

[323]*323Respondent’s default in regard to these charges shows a lack of responsibility rendering him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.

Respondent should be disbarred.

McGivern, J. P., Markewich, McNally, -Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred effective July 20, 1970.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Association of the Bar, moves to confirm the report of the Referee. It appears that respondent was admitted to practice in 1959. Various complaints against respondent were received by petitioner and an interview was had in October, 1966. At the interview respondent agreed to produce certain files. He never did, nor has petitioner or any of the former clients who complained been able to get in touch with him since. He served no answer to the petition, and did not appear before the Referee.

The six charges are based on gross neglect of the matters entrusted to respondent by four different clients. Of these charges, one was not pursued by petitioner due to absence of the complaining client. In the other instances, not only neglect but substantial loss to the clients was established.

[323]*323Respondent’s default in regard to these charges shows a lack of responsibility rendering him unfit to continue as a member of the Bar.

Respondent should be disbarred.

McGivern, J. P., Markewich, McNally, -Steuer and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred effective July 20, 1970.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 322, 311 N.Y.S.2d 758, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-london-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack