In re Shaad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Shaad

153 A.D.2d 308, 551 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1614

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 153 A.D.2d 308 (In re Shaad) 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 Shaad, 153 A.D.2d 308, 551 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1614 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1950 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Watertown, New York. Respondent was charged with neglecting legal matters en[309]*309trusted to him (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [A] [2], [3]).

The Referee appointed by this court to find and report the facts found that in several instances respondent neglected to prepare and serve bills of particulars after receipt of conditional orders of preclusion, thus resulting in dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints, and that he failed fully, adequately and completely to advise a client about the timeliness of commencing a personal injury action. On review of the record, we confirm the Referee’s report and find respondent guilty of violations of DR 6-101 (A) (2) and (3).

Under all of the circumstances, including the absence of any other charges of professional misconduct against respondent in almost 40 years of the practice of law, we conclude that he should be censured (see, Matter of Henry, 92 AD2d 369; Matter of Weldon, 94 AD2d 327).

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1950 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Watertown, New York. Respondent was charged with neglecting legal matters en[309]*309trusted to him (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 6-101 [A] [2], [3]).

The Referee appointed by this court to find and report the facts found that in several instances respondent neglected to prepare and serve bills of particulars after receipt of conditional orders of preclusion, thus resulting in dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints, and that he failed fully, adequately and completely to advise a client about the timeliness of commencing a personal injury action. On review of the record, we confirm the Referee’s report and find respondent guilty of violations of DR 6-101 (A) (2) and (3).

Under all of the circumstances, including the absence of any other charges of professional misconduct against respondent in almost 40 years of the practice of law, we conclude that he should be censured (see, Matter of Henry, 92 AD2d 369; Matter of Weldon, 94 AD2d 327).

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A.D.2d 308, 551 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shaad-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack