In re Schner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Schner

5 A.D.2d 599, 173 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5938

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

DecidedMay 13, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 599 (In re Schner) 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 Schner, 5 A.D.2d 599, 173 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5938 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Charges accusing respondent of issuing not less than 65 checks against his personal account — which were returned unpaid because of insufficient funds — and of neglecting the prosecution of a client’s claim and misrepresenting its court status to his client have been sustained by the Referee. The evidence fully supports the conclusions. In extenuation, the Referee points to the absence of proof that any indebtedness for which the checks were drawn remained unsatisfied or that the checks were issued in connection with respondent’s professional activities. Moreover, as to the charge of negligence and misrepresentation in the handling of the client’s accident claim, it was shown that the client obtained a judgment against respondent for damages suffered as a consequence of respondent’s neglect and that the judgment was wholly satisfied.

However, disciplinary proceedings are not conducted for the purpose of indirectly enforcing civil remedies or of giving redress for wrongs done. The power to discipline attorneys is invoked to protect the court and the public against unprofessional practices and to determine whether an attorney may properly be permitted to continue as a member of the profession after proof of misconduct.

Respondent did not file any answer to the charges leveled against him, did not appear to defend himself before the Referee and did not submit any papers on the application to confirm the Referee’s report. Such inaction is not only construed to-constitute an admission of the charges but also an indifference to the consequences of an adverse determination. In 1951, this [601]*601court censured respondent (Matter of Schner, 278 App. Div. 138). He lias nevertheless continued to violate his obligations to the court and to the public although there is no evidence of repetition of the misconduct for which he was censured.

Respondent has, in our opinion, demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the profession. He should be disbarred.

RabiN, J. P., FbaNk, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

Charges accusing respondent of issuing not less than 65 checks against his personal account — which were returned unpaid because of insufficient funds — and of neglecting the prosecution of a client’s claim and misrepresenting its court status to his client have been sustained by the Referee. The evidence fully supports the conclusions. In extenuation, the Referee points to the absence of proof that any indebtedness for which the checks were drawn remained unsatisfied or that the checks were issued in connection with respondent’s professional activities. Moreover, as to the charge of negligence and misrepresentation in the handling of the client’s accident claim, it was shown that the client obtained a judgment against respondent for damages suffered as a consequence of respondent’s neglect and that the judgment was wholly satisfied.

However, disciplinary proceedings are not conducted for the purpose of indirectly enforcing civil remedies or of giving redress for wrongs done. The power to discipline attorneys is invoked to protect the court and the public against unprofessional practices and to determine whether an attorney may properly be permitted to continue as a member of the profession after proof of misconduct.

Respondent did not file any answer to the charges leveled against him, did not appear to defend himself before the Referee and did not submit any papers on the application to confirm the Referee’s report. Such inaction is not only construed to-constitute an admission of the charges but also an indifference to the consequences of an adverse determination. In 1951, this [601]*601court censured respondent (Matter of Schner, 278 App. Div. 138). He lias nevertheless continued to violate his obligations to the court and to the public although there is no evidence of repetition of the misconduct for which he was censured.

Respondent has, in our opinion, demonstrated his moral unfitness to continue as a member of the profession. He should be disbarred.

RabiN, J. P., FbaNk, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 599, 173 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schner-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack