In re Meisel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Meisel

286 A.D. 251, 142 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4021

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

DecidedJune 28, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D. 251 (In re Meisel) 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 Meisel, 286 A.D. 251, 142 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent, an attorney, is charged with professional misconduct. The evidence adduced before the Referee amply supports the conclusion that respondent was continuously and grossly neglectful of the professional obligation owed to clients. He repeatedly failed to render services promised and avoided clients after receipt of fees. Repeated instances of such misconduct evidence a pattern of misrepresentation affecting clients whose background and immigration problems made them particularly susceptible to abuse at the hands of an attorney. Respondent has chosen not to answer the charges against him and has failed to appear before the Referee. Respondent should be disbarred.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent, an attorney, is charged with professional misconduct. The evidence adduced before the Referee amply supports the conclusion that respondent was continuously and grossly neglectful of the professional obligation owed to clients. He repeatedly failed to render services promised and avoided clients after receipt of fees. Repeated instances of such misconduct evidence a pattern of misrepresentation affecting clients whose background and immigration problems made them particularly susceptible to abuse at the hands of an attorney. Respondent has chosen not to answer the charges against him and has failed to appear before the Referee. Respondent should be disbarred.

Peck, P. J., Cohn, Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 251, 142 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-meisel-nyappdiv-1955.