In re Long

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Long

263 A.D. 658, 34 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973

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

DecidedApril 17, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 658 (In re Long) 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 Long, 263 A.D. 658, 34 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An official referee has found that the petitioner sustained the charge that the respondents employed a layman under an agreement to pay him a percentage of the net profits of their practice and that during such employment the layman brought two cases into the respondents’ office. The referee states that no evidence has been presented to establish that either of these cases had been solicited by the layman. It has also been found by the referee that neither respondent intended to violate the canons of ethics or any statute relating to the splitting of fees with a layman. The evidence sustains the findings of the referee.

The respondents should be censured for violating the canons of ethics by employing a layman on a percentage basis.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Respondents censured.

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

Per Curiam.

An official referee has found that the petitioner sustained the charge that the respondents employed a layman under an agreement to pay him a percentage of the net profits of their practice and that during such employment the layman brought two cases into the respondents’ office. The referee states that no evidence has been presented to establish that either of these cases had been solicited by the layman. It has also been found by the referee that neither respondent intended to violate the canons of ethics or any statute relating to the splitting of fees with a layman. The evidence sustains the findings of the referee.

The respondents should be censured for violating the canons of ethics by employing a layman on a percentage basis.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Respondents censured.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 658, 34 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-long-nyappdiv-1942.