Opinion
July 10, 1967
In this proceeding to discipline an attorney, petitioner moves to confirm the report of the former Justice of the Supreme Court to whom this court had referred the issues to hear and report. The petition herein sets forth six "causes of action" against respondent attorney, all of which charges emanated from complaints received by the petitioner Brooklyn Bar Association. The first five charges relate to individual complaints made against respondent and the sixth charge relates to respondent's conduct before petitioner's Committee on Grievances. At the final hearing before the former Justice, respondent submitted his letter of resignation as a member of the Bar and pleaded nolo contendere to all six charges. With respect to the charges set forth in the first five "causes of action", it was alleged and proven as to each of them that a complaint was filed with the petitioner; that the petitioner's Committee on Grievances investigated said complaints and held hearings thereon; and that respondent, although notified, failed to answer the complaints or appear at the hearings. The six charges, as set forth in the petition, may be briefly summarized: (1) The first "cause of action" alleged that the complainant had paid to respondent's client the sum of $1,300 for an assignment of a chattel mortgage; that respondent, although not the complainant's attorney, agreed to arrange for the assignment of the mortgage to him; and that respondent thereafter refused to comply with the complainant's demand for the delivery of the chattel mortgage; (2) The second "cause of action" alleged that respondent failed to answer the inquiries of a collection agency which represented the creditor of one of respondent's clients; (3) The third "cause of action" alleged that respondent had been retained by complainant to manage certain real estate owned by her and others; that respondent had mishandled moneys collected from the property; that he had issued checks in payment of bills affecting the property which were returned for insufficient funds; and that he had received rent from two tenants, cashed the rent checks, and failed to deposit the proceeds in the account maintained for that purpose; (4) The fourth "cause of action" alleged that respondent was retained by complainant to represent him in certain litigation and as a result of respondent's neglectful and improper conduct in the course of said litigation, a default judgment was entered against complainant resulting in a substantial financial loss; (5) The fifth "cause of action" alleged that respondent was retained by complainant to represent him in certain litigation and when requested to return the papers to complainant and advise him of the status of the litigation he failed to do so; and (6) The sixth "cause of action" realleged all of the foregoing charges, particularly in relation to the investigation conducted by the Committee on Grievances of the aforesaid complaints against respondent. The petition further alleged that on March 16, 1966, the respondent appeared before the Committee on Grievances pursuant to subpoena and was given additional time in which to answer the complaints which he failed to do and respondent there stated that, although he had received mail from petitioner, he had never opened the same. The reporting Justice found that each of the first five charges was sustained by the evidence, with the exception that, as to the second "cause of action", the Justice found that, although the evidence presented supported the charge as set forth that respondent failed to answer some of the inquiries of the complainant, the charge was "without any substance" in view of the fact that there was no attorney-client relationship between complainant and respondent. With respect to the sixth "cause of action", although the Justice made no specific finding as to this charge, implicit in his findings on the prior five charges is the conclusion that the evidence also sustained this charge. The findings of the Justice are sustained by the evidence and the motion to confirm the report is granted. As previously stated, at the final hearing respondent submitted his letter of resignation which is hereby accepted. Accordingly, respondent's name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective July 17, 1967. Beldock, P.J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.