In re Schatz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Schatz

277 A.D.2d 51

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

DecidedJune 8, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 51 (In re Schatz) 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 Schatz, 277 A.D.2d 51 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Official Referee and to adjudge respondent guilty of professional misconduct should be granted. The record fully sustains the charge that respondent grossly neglected to carry out the terms of a retainer and misinformed his clients. Fortunately, no harm resulted therefrom. The fee received by respondent was returned in full after complaint had been made to petitioner. Mitigating circumstances existing at the time respondent neglected his clients’ interest warrant leniency in this case.

The respondent should be suspended for three months.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Yoorhis and Shientag JJ , concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of three months,

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

Per Curiam.

The petitioner’s motion to confirm the report of the Official Referee and to adjudge respondent guilty of professional misconduct should be granted. The record fully sustains the charge that respondent grossly neglected to carry out the terms of a retainer and misinformed his clients. Fortunately, no harm resulted therefrom. The fee received by respondent was returned in full after complaint had been made to petitioner. Mitigating circumstances existing at the time respondent neglected his clients’ interest warrant leniency in this case.

The respondent should be suspended for three months.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Callahan, Van Yoorhis and Shientag JJ , concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of three months,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schatz-nyappdiv-1950.