In re Schwarz

175 A.D. 335, 161 N.Y.S. 1079, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8370
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 1, 1916·Published·Cited by 17 cases

Opinions

Clarke, P. J.:

This matter was submitted upon the petition, answer, exhibits and briefs. The petition charges that the respondent has been guilty of malpractice and unprofessional conduct as an attorney and counselor at law, in the following particulars:

A. By the sending of circulars or letters to creditors in a pending judicial proceeding, soliciting them to place with him as attorney their claims for collection in said proceedings, and, specifically, the mailing or causing to be mailed on or about February 23, 1916, a circular letter, a copy of which was annexed. Said letter is as follows:

Re Receivership of Cincinnati, Bluffton and Chicago R. R. Co. Running from Portland to Huntington, Ind.
“I am working in conjunction with my Huntington, Indiana, corresponding attorneys who control a large number of the creditors in the above estate running into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
“ The matter is about to shape itself satisfactorily and if [336]*336your claim is not already represented or filed for allowance and payment, will you not. be good enough to get it up in itemized form and send it to me on a 10% purely contingent basis or on terms contained in the within folder. No collection, no charge.
“In any event, as I am. quite anxious to hear from you in one form or another, I shall be pleased if you will drop me a few lines enclosing the account or informing me that you have already .placed the same, letting me have the name of the party who is representing you.”

B. In mailing or causing to be mailed circulars requesting and offering to handle matters or claims in behalf of persons not then clients of his, and inciting and urging persons to place matters in his hands for the purpose of collection by suit or other professional service.

0. Inspiring’ and promoting and printing’ and widely circulating, in circulars and public prints, advertisements of himself and his methods, to the end and with the purpose' and intent of procuring parties unknown to him to employ him as attorney at law.

D. Said attorney has transgressed canon 27 of the Code of Ethics of the American Bar Association, adopted by the New York State Bar Association, as follows:

“27. Advertising, Direct or Indirect. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is notp&r se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews, not warranted by professional relations, is unprofessional. It is equally" unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring [337]*337newspaper comments concerning causes in which the lawyer has been or is engaged or concerning the matter of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of the lawyer’s positions, and all other self-like laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.”

Among the exhibits submitted in support of the charges are the following:

A typical letter addressed to a. business house in New York city is as follows: On stationery headed:

“ Adolph M. Schwarz “Attorney and Counsellor at Law “Commercial Collections Everywhere.
“ Gentlemen.—Everywhere you go you hear that `collections are slow; ’ that business is poor; ’ that 1 thousands are out of work;’ that ‘ families are starving; ’ that on account of the war, conditions are bad; ’ and that ‘ the people are not so free with their money as they used to be.’
“ Business is not bad. Collections are not poor, except you make them so. The country is just as busy as ever, eliminating the idle and the dead. New industrial enterprises and all sorts of mercantile ventures, enlisting millions of capital, spring daily into existence, with as much courage and enthusiasm and with as much earnestness and sincerity of purpose now as before the war. Fortunately for America, the Nation as a whole has been taught by this chronic and pessimistic war scare to be more conservative and less extravagant; more cautious and less reckless with their own and other people’s money. The people have become more sensible in their mode of living and by the exercise of such thrift, economy and foresight, they are not only making money but are laying it aside for fear that the unfounded, though plausible, rumors may still become true.
“ Therefore, this is the most opportune moment to pull in your long-past-due accounts. Several months extension on a thirty or sixty day past due account is ample. The easier you are with a debtor, the more time he wants. That is human nature. Undeserved kindness begets imposition. Imposition [338]*338creates a burden. You owe it to yourself and to your business to unload such burden by sending your delinquent accounts to any of my offices nearest the debtor. They will get the money for you with or without suit, without any delay. No suit brought without your authority and then not unless the debtor is good on execution. Don’t wait until ‘ it’s too late ’ or until a more vigilant creditor gets in ahead of you.
<£ My New York, Chicago, Boston, Detroit and Atlanta offices maintain a staff of able attorneys and experienced counsel, thus enabling each office to at all times efficiently take care of and ably prosecute any law matters entrusted to its care, no matter how complicated, intricate or difficult the subject matter may be or where the contentious parties may reside.”

A typical advertisement in a daily newspaper is as follows:

`` Daily Incidents — No. 3.
“ On the 21st a client ’phoned a $633.00 Atlanta claim. My Atlanta office was immediately wired to protect claim and collect. The next afternoon this wire was received: Have collected $200.00. Balance guaranteed by $1000.00 worth of current accounts assigned to me by debtor.
“ This is the £ Quality Service ’ which I offer you.
££ ADOLPH M. SCHWARZ,
££ Attorney and Counsellor at Law.”
“ Commercial Collections Everywhere.
“299 Broadway, New York “ Other Offices
“ Cleveland Boston
“ Leader Bldg. Kimball Bldg.
“ Detroit Atlanta
“ Dime Bank Bldg. 618-22 Hart Bldg.
“Chicago
“First National Bank Bldg.”

Another advertisement is as follows:

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

In re Schwarz, 175 A.D. 335, 161 N.Y.S. 1079, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

175 A.D. 335 (In re Schwarz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Willenson
123 N.W.2d 452 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1963)
In re Connelly
18 A.D.2d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1963)
In Re Rothman
97 A.2d 621 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1953)
In Re Ades
6 F. Supp. 467 (D. Maryland, 1934)
In Re Disbarment of John D. Greathouse
248 N.W. 735 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1933)
In Re Disbarment of William Fitz Gibbons
234 N.W. 637 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1931)
In Re the Disbarment of Gibbs
278 P. 371 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1929)
In re Rothbard
225 A.D. 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1929)
In re Pouker
203 A.D. 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1922)
Matter of Schwarz
132 N.E. 921 (New York Court of Appeals, 1921)
In re Clifton
196 P. 670 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1921)
In re Schwarz
195 A.D. 194 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Berezniak
127 N.E. 36 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1920)
In re J. W. Rowe Co.
191 A.D. 179 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1920)
In re Gray
184 A.D. 822 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)