Opinion
July 10, 1967
Proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney, for professional misconduct. Respondent was admitted to practice on March 12, 1926 by this court. Pursuant to an order of reference, dated April 17, 1967, a Justice of the Supreme Court has heard the issues and has submitted his report to this court. Petitioner now moves to confirm the report and to impose discipline upon respondent. Although a pleading entitled "Notice of Appearance and Answer" was interposed, there was no denial of the allegations of the petition. At the hearing held before the Justice, respondent conceded the facts set forth in the petition and maintained that the sole issue was one of "extenuating circumstances". The charges against respondent, as alleged in the petition and as found by the Justice, may be briefly stated: In October, 1965, respondent represented the seller in a real estate transaction. At the signing of the contract he received two checks totaling $2,700 which, pursuant to the terms of the contract, were to be held by him in escrow pending the closing of title. On the day the contract was executed, one of the checks in the amount of $2,600 was indorsed by respondent and deposited in the account of an associate and, in return therefor, respondent received the associate's checks in the same amount which were used, as follows: (a) $1,000 was paid to another client whose case he had settled and to whom he owed $1,000 as the client's share of the settlement proceeds; (b) $309.95 was paid to an insurance company in payment of insurance premiums which respondent, as an insurance broker, had owed to the company; and (c) $1,290.95 was retained by respondent. The second check in the amount of $100 was indorsed by respondent to a friend in payment of a loan. At the title closing, respondent was able to deliver to the seller a check for only $400 and a bill for $150 for services rendered. Thereafter, he paid the seller an additional $350, leaving a balance of $1,800. The balance was not paid to the seller until the very day that the petitioner had scheduled a hearing on the complaint which it had received from the seller. The findings of the Justice are fully sustained by the evidence. Accordingly, the motion to confirm the report is granted. In an attempt to explain his conduct, respondent testified that he had been ill, that he had used part of the proceeds to extinguish certain personal obligations, and that he had made full payment of the money which he owed to complainant. It is our opinion that suspension from practice for two years would be an appropriate and suitable discipline to be imposed upon respondent. Respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective August 1, 1967. Beldock, P.J., Christ, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.