In re Weldon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Weldon

94 A.D.2d 327, 465 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17992

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

DecidedJuly 11, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A.D.2d 327 (In re Weldon) 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 Weldon, 94 A.D.2d 327, 465 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17992 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice in 1951 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Watertown, New York. The charges of misconduct brought by petitioner include neglecting legal matters entrusted to him (Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 6-101[A][3]) and collecting a clearly excessive fee (Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-106LA]).

The referee appointed by this court to find and report the facts found that in several instances respondent “neglected to pursue in a reasonable period of time matters which he was retained to do and which did not require any particular degree of legal experience or expertise.” On review of the record we confirm the referee’s report and find respondent guilty of violations of DR 6-101(A)(3). We also find that in one instance respondent retained a clearly excessive fee in violation of DR 2-106(A). We note that in that case respondent returned a portion of the fee. Under all of [328]*328the circumstances, including the absence of any other complaint against respondent in more than 30 years of practice, we conclude that he should be censured.

Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, 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 1951 and maintains an office for the practice of law in Watertown, New York. The charges of misconduct brought by petitioner include neglecting legal matters entrusted to him (Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 6-101[A][3]) and collecting a clearly excessive fee (Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 2-106LA]).

The referee appointed by this court to find and report the facts found that in several instances respondent “neglected to pursue in a reasonable period of time matters which he was retained to do and which did not require any particular degree of legal experience or expertise.” On review of the record we confirm the referee’s report and find respondent guilty of violations of DR 6-101(A)(3). We also find that in one instance respondent retained a clearly excessive fee in violation of DR 2-106(A). We note that in that case respondent returned a portion of the fee. Under all of [328]*328the circumstances, including the absence of any other complaint against respondent in more than 30 years of practice, we conclude that he should be censured.

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

Order of censure entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 327, 465 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-weldon-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack