Gould, In re
| Decision Date | 25 June 1957 |
| Citation | 4 A.D.2d 174,164 N.Y.S.2d 48 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Samuel J. GOULD, An Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frank H. Gordon, New York City (Frederick H. Block, New York City, of counsel), for Ass'n of the Bar of the City of New York.
Samuel J. Gould, respondent in pro. per.
Before PECK, P. J., and BREITEL, BOTEIN, RABIN, and FRANK, JJ.
The respondent in this disciplinary proceeding was admitted to practice in this department on June 29, 1928. Since that time he has been engaged primarily in commercial fields and not in the active practice of law. He is charged with professional misconduct for having been guilty of disgraceful behavior unworthy of a member of the Bar.
The evidence completely substantiates the charges that respondent, although he employed no female help, lured young women to his premises by advertisements for help wanted, sought to elicit from them answers to highly improper questions by giving assurances that as a lawyer he would keep such answers in strict confidence, attempted to induce them to commit prostitution and other immoral acts, made indecent proposals, and attempted assault with intent to commit rape. The denials and explanations by respondent that he was only trying to ascertain their temperamental qualifications for sales positions with his firm were patently incredible. Such flagrant misconduct indicates complete unfitness to continue as a member of the legal profession (Matter of Okin, 272 App.Div. 607, 73 N.Y.S.2d 861).
Respondent argues, however, that he was found to be insane at the time of the commission of the acts with which he is charged, and that he is now fully recovered. This may be a defense to a criminal charge, where the intent to commit the wrongful act is a necessary ingredient; but in disciplinary proceedings, dependent upon the nature of the misconduct, the attorney's conduct may be judged not only by his intent but also by the objective nature of his conduct and the quality of his act. A disciplinary proceeding is not concerned with meting out punishment but with the question of fitness to continue on the roll of qualified attorneys. The primary consideration is the protection of the public in its reliance upon the integrity and responsibility of the legal profession. Practitioners, whether incapable or unwilling to distinguish between right and wrong, cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney Grievance Comm. for the First Judicial Dep't v. Giuliani (In re Giuliani)
... ... 1962] ; see Matter of Gould , 4 A.D.2d 174, 164 N.Y.S.2d 48 [1st Dept. 1957] ). Each Judicial Department of the Appellate Divisions of the New York Supreme Court is responsible for the enforcement of the Rules of Professional Conduct within its departmental jurisdiction ( Judiciary Law 90[2] ). Attorney Grievance ... ...
-
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Moothart
... ... See, e.g., People v. Lowery, 894 P.2d 758, 760 (Colo.1995) (en banc) (sexual harassment of employees); In re Discipline of Peters, 428 N.W.2d 375, 376, 38182 (Minn.1988) (sexual harassment of employees and law students); In re Gould, 4 A.D.2d 174, 176, 164 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y.App.Div.1957) (per curiam) (sexual harassment of job applicants). Clearly, the adoption of rule 32:8.4(g), which explicitly prohibits sexual harassment in the practice of law, was designed to strengthen, and not limit, the application of ethical rules in ... ...
-
Discipline of Peters, Matter of
... ... (Minn.1988); In re Kirby, 354 N.W.2d 410 (Minn.1984) (judge publicly censured for referring to female attorneys as "lawyerettes" in court); In re Snyder, 336 N.W.2d 533 (Minn.1983) (public censure of judge pursuant to stipulation based on adulterous relationship with his secretary); In re Gould, 4 A.D.2d 174, 164 N.Y.S.2d 48, appeal denied, 4 A.D.2d ... ...
-
Rowe, Matter of
... ... Thus, the inquiry is not directed to the attorney's subjective mental processes, but to the objective and qualitative nature of the conduct, for it is the acts themselves which the public sees and which guide its perception of the Bar (see, Matter of Gould, 4 A.D.2d 174, 175, 164 N.Y.S.2d 48, lv denied 3 N.Y.2d 708; see generally, Note, Disbarment: Non-Professional Conduct Demonstrating Unfitness to Practice, 43 Cornell L.Q. 489; 6 N.Y.Jur.2d, Attorneys at Law, § 19). Although respondent was not criminally responsible for his acts, they tended ... ...