In re Nicholson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Nicholson

48 A.D.2d 94, 367 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9552

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

DecidedMay 15, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 94 (In re Nicholson) 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 Nicholson, 48 A.D.2d 94, 367 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice June 27, 1951 in the First Judicial Department. In this proceeding, it was charged that respondent, retained in a contractual dispute, falsely advised his client that the case was in arbitration, fabricated documentary evidence which he exhibited to his client to support this false assertion and, upon the client’s discovery of the misrepresentation, refused to respond to inquiries of the client’s new counsel. The record indicates that this is the first complaint or matter charged against respondent.

The Referee’s findings are fully supported by the evidence and his report is confirmed. Patently, the conduct of respon[95]*95dent cannot be condoned. Such actions tend to bring disrepute to the profession. It is noted that respondent returned the retainer and it appears that the client’s case was subsequently settled by new counsel. Consideration of all relevant circumstances warrants concluding that a suspension from practice for a period of three months is sufficient punishment. The respondent should be suspended for a period of three months.

Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Lupiano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of three months, effective June 16, 1975.

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

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice June 27, 1951 in the First Judicial Department. In this proceeding, it was charged that respondent, retained in a contractual dispute, falsely advised his client that the case was in arbitration, fabricated documentary evidence which he exhibited to his client to support this false assertion and, upon the client’s discovery of the misrepresentation, refused to respond to inquiries of the client’s new counsel. The record indicates that this is the first complaint or matter charged against respondent.

The Referee’s findings are fully supported by the evidence and his report is confirmed. Patently, the conduct of respon[95]*95dent cannot be condoned. Such actions tend to bring disrepute to the profession. It is noted that respondent returned the retainer and it appears that the client’s case was subsequently settled by new counsel. Consideration of all relevant circumstances warrants concluding that a suspension from practice for a period of three months is sufficient punishment. The respondent should be suspended for a period of three months.

Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Lupiano, Tilzer and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended from practice as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York for a period of three months, effective June 16, 1975.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 94, 367 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nicholson-nyappdiv-1975.