The respondent was admitted to the bar in April, 1892, at a General Term of the Supreme Court held in the county of New York and has been and is now practicing as such in the First Judicial District.
Three sets of charges of unprofessional conduct have been preferred against him. The original charge was to the effect that the respondent .converted to his own use $679, being part of certain rents which he collected while acting as attorney and agent for the Misses McGinnis, two women clients who owned certain real property in New York, and
While we do not differ with the conclusion above set forth, the conduct of the respondent in dealing with these two ladies in borrowing moneys from them without security, and in obtaining large sums from them for the ostensible purpose of paying off mortgages and taxes on their property, and immediately thereafter using portions thereof for his own purposes and then by personal importunities transferring the obligation into the shape of personal loans, without security and often "without written acknowledgments, indicates a failure to realize professional obligations, and, to put it as mildly as possible, a careless use of the money of others which cannot meet our approval.
While the original charges were pending two supplemental charges were submitted and referred to the same referee. The second charge affects respondent’s professional relations with one Emma H. Weiss, who was injured by a street car in Hoboken, N. J. The facts as stated by the learned referee are substantially as follows: The respondent caused an action for damages to be brought in New Jersey and procured the services of Hon. William H. Seufert as attorney to act in the matter. The case was tried resulting in a verdict for the complainant in the sum of $5,000 and in March, 1913, the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey, the defendant in the action, paid in satisfaction of the judgment the sum of
In our opinion the evidence fully sustains the charge of conversion. It is conceded that on March 31, 1913, respondent collected $4,666.66 in satisfaction of the judgment which had been recovered. The complaining witness and her husband both testified that in April, 1913, after this money had been collected, the respondent called at their house and stated that defendant had appealed the case to Trenton. Her husband testified that he made inquiries during 1913 and 1914, endeavoring to obtain information in regard to the progress of the case and he was informed that there had been delays by reason of the court vacation and that they would have to wait for a while longer. The complaining witness testified that the respondent admitted that he had used the money. That he repeatedly stated between March, 1913, and October, 1915, that the case was still pending on appeal. The respondent himself testified: “So I did not communicate with her or inform her that the money had been paid. Her husband then came down to see me in the fall and I told him that the matter had been delayed and I said nothing about — any delay having taken place. I simply told him that the matter was delayed and he incidentally remarked himself that he saw in the press that there was a long delay in Jersey and he could understand the matter, so that ended the situation.”
It is clearly established that the respondent converted his client’s money to his own use; that for a long space of time he concealed from her the fact that the judgment had been paid and that at the time of the hearing he still owed a substantial amount thereof. There can be no question but that he was guilty of gross professional misconduct.
The further charge was that in September, 1912, Pauline Georgens retained the respondent to recover damages for injuries she received as the result of an accident and that he should receive as compensation fifty per cent of the amount recovered. The case was settled on the 31st day of March, 1916, the respondent receiving in settlement the sum of $500. He informed his client of the receipt of this money and requested her to wait five or six weeks for the payment of her share as he was in need of the money for use in his personal affairs. She made no objection to the respondent’s proposal. Upon the expiration of the six weeks Mrs. Georgens called upon the respondent and asked for the $250 due her. The respondent stated his inability to pay the money and gave her his check for $250 which he told her to hold as evidence of the indebtedness until he had sufficient funds to cash it. He never notified her that he had funds with which to cash the check. In August, 1916, Mrs. Georgens made a further demand for the money due her. On this occasion the respondent gave her his personal note payable on demand for the sum of $255, being. the amount due her, plus interest and carfare, as asserted by the respondent. In January, 1917, the respondent paid $150 on account of the indebtedness. Thereafter Mrs. Georgens, through the Legal Aid Society,
The learned referee has reported that “ in the circumstances, it requires no discussion of the testimony to show that the state of facts is such as to necessarily point to the conclusion that the handling of the business by the respondent falls far short of meeting the ethical standard required of lawyers in the practi.ce of their profession. In my opinion the respondent is guilty as charged in the petition.”
It appears that at the time the respondent induced Mrs. Georgens to authorize him to use her money there was pending against him proceedings in the Appellate Division in which he was charged with unprofessional conduct. The record disclosed an utter disregard by the respondent of his professional obligations in regard to his clients and their money. Upon the very day that he claims Mrs. Georgens consented to loan him the $250 belonging to her in his possession he wrote to Mrs. Weiss, referring to the notes which he had given her and said, “ I am sending you check for four-months’ interest to April 16, 1916, on my note. I will be unable to meet it on the 16th of April, and, therefore, am compelled to ask you for one more extension of time.” It would appear, therefore, that the respondent knew that at the time he claims he induced Mrs. Georgens to loan him the money he could not repay it at the end of the five or six weeks as he then promised.
The record also shows that on said March 30, 1916, there were several judgments outstanding against the respondent unsatisfied of record.
The respondent has been long at the bar and has submitted a number of letters as to his good character. The record establishes beyond question concealment of the collection of moneys belonging to his clients and deceit in regard thereto, in order to cover up the unlawful use of funds belonging to them and not to him. Such conduct is not to be palliated because of his pecuniary necessities nor condoned by partial payment after the institution of disciplinary proceedings.
Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ., concurred.
Respondent disbarred. Order to be settled on notice.