Silver v. Goldner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Silver v. Goldner

15 A.D.2d 558, 222 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6861

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 558 (Silver v. Goldner) 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

Silver v. Goldner, 15 A.D.2d 558, 222 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In our opinion, the charges enumerated 'below upon which the Referee found the respondent guilty, are amply supported by the record and show clearly his unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. These charges are: (a) failure to provide clients with statements relative to the settlement and disposition of their cases; (b) division of fees for legal services with persons other than lawyers; (c) subornation of perjury; (d) perjury committed upon the hearings before the Special Referee. In our opinion, respondent’s guilt of charges (a), (b) and (c) (supra), is sufficient to warrant his disbarment without consideration of his guilt on the fourth charge, (d). However, his guilt on such fourth charge leaves no question as to the nature or extent of the discipline here required. When an attorney has deliberately attempted by perjured testimony to escape the consequences of his misconduct, he is no longer fit to remain a member of the profession (Matter of Sidman, 268 App. Div. 1040, motion for leave to appeal denied 294 N. Y. 645; Matter of Smith, 148 App. Div. 291, 295; Matter of Thorn, 164 App. Div. 151). A further hearing is unwarranted. The record amply sustains the findings of the Special Referee, without resorting to any alleged extra-judicial checking of the so-called “yellow sheets.” Beldoek, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., not voting.

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

In our opinion, the charges enumerated 'below upon which the Referee found the respondent guilty, are amply supported by the record and show clearly his unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. These charges are: (a) failure to provide clients with statements relative to the settlement and disposition of their cases; (b) division of fees for legal services with persons other than lawyers; (c) subornation of perjury; (d) perjury committed upon the hearings before the Special Referee. In our opinion, respondent’s guilt of charges (a), (b) and (c) (supra), is sufficient to warrant his disbarment without consideration of his guilt on the fourth charge, (d). However, his guilt on such fourth charge leaves no question as to the nature or extent of the discipline here required. When an attorney has deliberately attempted by perjured testimony to escape the consequences of his misconduct, he is no longer fit to remain a member of the profession (Matter of Sidman, 268 App. Div. 1040, motion for leave to appeal denied 294 N. Y. 645; Matter of Smith, 148 App. Div. 291, 295; Matter of Thorn, 164 App. Div. 151). A further hearing is unwarranted. The record amply sustains the findings of the Special Referee, without resorting to any alleged extra-judicial checking of the so-called “yellow sheets.” Beldoek, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur; Kleinfeld, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 558, 222 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silver-v-goldner-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack