From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1967
28 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

May 8, 1967


Petitioner has moved (1) to confirm the report of the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom this matter was referred by this court's order dated September 29, 1965 and (2) for denial of respondent's pending motion to vacate this court's prior order made in this proceeding and dated June 29, 1965, which disbarred him. Respondent has made a cross motion which, in effect, is a renewal of his said pending motion and of other prior applications. The disbarment order was made after respondent had interposed an answer to the petition, which answer omitted to deny any of the charges of misconduct contained in the petition and only challenged the jurisdiction of this court ( Matter of Klein, 23 A.D.2d 356, affd. 18 N.Y.2d 598, cert. den. 385 U.S. 973, rehearing den. 385 U.S. 1032). The reference to the Justice was a result of respondent's said motion to vacate the disbarment order. The order of reference granted that motion to the extent of (1) permitting respondent to interpose an amended answer to the petition and (2) directing the reference (for hearing and report, with findings). Respondent interposed such an answer, containing denials of the charges and also several defenses. However, after his preliminary objections before the designated Justice, including an objection to the Justice's qualification to act, were overruled, he withdrew from the proceeding. The hearing thereupon proceeded, with respondent absent, and the Justice has filed his report, finding therein that four of the charges ([a], [c], [f] and [g]) were sustained (charge [a] in part) and the remaining three charges ([b], [d] and [e]) were not. It is this report with which we are presently concerned. Descriptively, the charges thus found sustained are: (a) Respondent contumaciously refused to answer questions as a witness on January 24, 1964, at the Additional Special Term of the Supreme Court, Kings County, for Judicial Inquiry on Professional Conduct in Kings County, in violation of his duty as a member of the legal profession; and defied the authority of the court to elicit information within his knowledge relating to (1) the charges which he and certain of his clients had made of alleged misconduct and corruption on the part of various members of the judiciary and certain members of the Bar (as to which charges this court had directed the Judicial Inquiry to hold hearings and to report) and (2) his conduct as a lawyer; and he thereby hindered and impeded the Judicial Inquiry (the Justice also found that the charge was not sustained insofar as it was alleged that respondent was guilty of the same misconduct on January 23, 1964); (c) In an action in the Supreme Court, Queens County, respondent deceived the court and the third-party defendant by preparing and serving a third-party summons and complaint, naming therein a certain attorney as attorney of record for the third-party plaintiff, when in fact that attorney had no knowledge thereof, had not consented thereto and had not been retained by the third-party plaintiff therefor; (f) In or about October, 1961, while appearing for a party in a litigation, respondent communicated with an adverse party therein upon the subject of the litigation, without the knowledge or consent of the adverse party's attorneys; and (g) Despite the fact that he had been retained as attorney for a certain client, respondent aided in the preparation and filing of a creditors' petition in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against that client in March of 1964; gave the petitioning creditors legal advice; and prepared papers for execution and filing by such creditors in the bankruptcy court; and, nevertheless, he thereafter filed an answer to the petition, as attorney for the alleged bankrupt, which answer denied certain allegations in the petition, which allegations had been based upon information provided by him. In our opinion, the findings as to charges (a), (c), (f) and (g) are supported by the proof and should be confirmed. We also confirm the Justice's findings as to charges (b), (d) and (e) and dismiss those charges. Accordingly, petitioner's motion is granted and respondent's cross motion is denied in all respects. Brennan, Acting P.J., Rabin, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J. not voting.


Summaries of

Matter of Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 1967
28 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Matter of Klein

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of WILLIAM RORERT KLEIN, an Attorney, Respondent. SOLOMON A…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 8, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 538 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)