Opinion
May 1, 1967
In this proceeding to discipline an attorney for professional misconduct, petitioner moves to confirm the report of the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom this court had referred the issues for hearing and report. Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on June 28, 1932. The charges against respondent were set forth in 13 specifications (A to M, inclusive). A hearing was held as to specifications A to D, inclusive; and hearing on the remaining specifications was held in abeyance. Under specification A, the reporting Justice found that respondent had failed to maintain an escrow bank account from 1960 to March 16, 1965 for funds belonging to clients in negligence actions; had commingled such trust funds with his personal funds and had made disbursements from said commingled funds for his own personal and business purposes over the same period of time; had failed to pay his clients in two cases the full amounts of the recoveries due to them; and had deposited, into his own bank account, as to seven cases, clients' funds or funds of clients retained by him for payments to lienors and, thereafter, had caused the balance in his account to become insufficient to cover these funds. Under specification B, it was found that respondent (1) had failed to honor liens and had withheld money from clients and lienors, appropriating the money to his own use, and (2) had failed to obtain the consent of lienors to the settlement or adjustment of claims against third parties, contrary to section 29 Work. Comp. of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Under specification C, the Justice found that in a certain infant's case respondent had deposited $700 into his own bank account and had used that money, and had also appropriated $300 to his own use, whereas a court order of compromise required the $700 to be deposited in a particular bank to the credit of the infant and the $300 to be paid to a named doctor. Under specification D, it was found that respondent (1) had failed to file closing statements in 21 negligence actions and had untimely filed statements in 8 such actions, (2) had failed to serve, file and provide clients in 7 negligence actions with copies of closing statements, (3) had filed inaccurate and incorrect closing statements in 20 actions and (4) had improperly charged expenses to a client and had made these improper charges on the pertinent closing statement. The above-mentioned findings are fully sustained by the evidence. The motion to confirm the report is granted. In our opinion, respondent is unfit to be a member of the Bar. He is disbarred and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith. Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.