In re McKeon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re McKeon

194 A.D.2d 246, 608 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12802

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 246 (In re McKeon) 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 McKeon, 194 A.D.2d 246, 608 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent has practiced law in New York since his admis[247]*247sion by this Court on November 17, 1949. The Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District filed a petition containing five separate charges of attorney misconduct. Respondent submitted an answer that denied some of the material allegations of that petition. This Court appointed a Referee to conduct a hearing and take proof on the disputed issues of fact. The Referee found that respondent failed to cooperate timely in the investigation by the Grievance Committee of those charges, that respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him as an attorney and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he loaned/advanced money against the ultimate proceeds to be obtained from a personal injury action.

Respondent, now age 73, acknowledges that he has been neglectful in the manner in which he has operated his law practice and that he had taken on more matters than he could manage in a professional manner. The Referee found in mitigation that respondent’s situation was exacerbated when his two associates left the office, thus creating an increased workload, and by his hospitalization for, and recovery from, surgery.

We confirm the Referee’s report. We recognize respondent’s pro bono work and his dedication to public service and to his community. Any practice, however, where an attorney advances a client money in advance of an ultimate settlement in a pending case cannot be disregarded. Such conduct by an attorney is unacceptable and a public censure is required.

Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent has practiced law in New York since his admis[247]*247sion by this Court on November 17, 1949. The Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District filed a petition containing five separate charges of attorney misconduct. Respondent submitted an answer that denied some of the material allegations of that petition. This Court appointed a Referee to conduct a hearing and take proof on the disputed issues of fact. The Referee found that respondent failed to cooperate timely in the investigation by the Grievance Committee of those charges, that respondent neglected legal matters entrusted to him as an attorney and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility when he loaned/advanced money against the ultimate proceeds to be obtained from a personal injury action.

Respondent, now age 73, acknowledges that he has been neglectful in the manner in which he has operated his law practice and that he had taken on more matters than he could manage in a professional manner. The Referee found in mitigation that respondent’s situation was exacerbated when his two associates left the office, thus creating an increased workload, and by his hospitalization for, and recovery from, surgery.

We confirm the Referee’s report. We recognize respondent’s pro bono work and his dedication to public service and to his community. Any practice, however, where an attorney advances a client money in advance of an ultimate settlement in a pending case cannot be disregarded. Such conduct by an attorney is unacceptable and a public censure is required.

Denman, P. J., Green, Balio, Fallon and Doerr, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 246, 608 N.Y.S.2d 900, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mckeon-nyappdiv-1993.