In re Southall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Southall

7 A.D.2d 360, 183 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9538

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 360 (In re Southall) 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 Southall, 7 A.D.2d 360, 183 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Three charges of professional misconduct were filed against the respondent. The Referee sustained all of them and the evidence adduced before him amply supports his conclusion.

It was established that the respondent converted money entrusted to him for a specific purpose by a client. He admitted that he altered a Supreme Court order, without the permission, consent or approval of a Justice of that court. The record discloses that the respondent commingled escrow funds with his own, and failed to remit any part of the escrow funds, in accordance with the terms of his receipt, to the person entitled thereto. On at least 27 occasions, over a period of nine months, he issued checks on his special checking account which were returned marked “ insufficient funds ”.

The respondent’s conduct was violative of the standards set for the profession and tended to bring it into disrepute. In reaching this determination, all matters not specified in the charges have been eliminated from consideration.

The respondent should be disbarred.

Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

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

Per Curiam.

Three charges of professional misconduct were filed against the respondent. The Referee sustained all of them and the evidence adduced before him amply supports his conclusion.

It was established that the respondent converted money entrusted to him for a specific purpose by a client. He admitted that he altered a Supreme Court order, without the permission, consent or approval of a Justice of that court. The record discloses that the respondent commingled escrow funds with his own, and failed to remit any part of the escrow funds, in accordance with the terms of his receipt, to the person entitled thereto. On at least 27 occasions, over a period of nine months, he issued checks on his special checking account which were returned marked “ insufficient funds ”.

The respondent’s conduct was violative of the standards set for the profession and tended to bring it into disrepute. In reaching this determination, all matters not specified in the charges have been eliminated from consideration.

The respondent should be disbarred.

Botein, P. J., M. M. Frank, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 360, 183 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-southall-nyappdiv-1959.