Hughes, In re

• Decision Date: 06 January 1971
• Citation: 35 A.D.2d 440,316 N.Y.S.2d 871
• Parties: In the Matter of John O. HUGHES, an Attorney. SUFFOLK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. John O. HUGHES, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 871

316 N.Y.S.2d 871

35 A.D.2d 440

In the Matter of John O. HUGHES, an Attorney.

SUFFOLK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. John O. HUGHES, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Jan. 6, 1971.

George E. Lechtrecker, Patchogue, for petitioner.

Hicholas M. Pette, Jamaica (Joseph P. Napoli, Bayside, of counsel), for respondent.

Before RABIN, P.J., and HOPKINS, MUNDER, MARTUSCELLO and LATHAM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this proceeding to discipline an attorney for professional misconduct, the petitioner now moves to confirm the report of the Justice of the Supreme Court to whom the matter was referred for hearing and report, except as to the recommendation therein as to the discipline to be imposed, and the respondent cross-moves to confirm the report insofar as it is favorable to him to disaffirm it otherwise, and to dismiss the petition.

The petition sets forth eight separate charges of professional misconduct involving certain named clients of the respondent. One charge ('Fifth') was withdrawn by the petitioner prior to the commencement of the hearing before Mr. Justice Glickman. The report concludes that each of the remaining charges was sustained, except the one designated 'Fourth' and except that the one designated 'Third' was sustained only in part. It may be noted that there were 1,697 pages of testimony and the Justice's report is 64 pages in length.

Briefly stated, and without enumerating the particular charges involved, each of which is individually set forth in the comprehensive report which has been submitted to the court, the reporting Justice has found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct, Inter alia, as follows: (1) overcharging clients in negligence cases in violation of the rules of this court; (2) filing with the Judicial Conference inaccurate statements of retainer and closing statements; (3) wrongfully endorsing a check without the consent or authorization of the substituted attorneys who were the named payees thereof; (4) improperly failing to acknowledge, and then resisting payment of, the lien of a substituted attorney, thus requiring the latter to bring a proceeding to enforce his lien and eventually to invoke a Sheriff's services to collect upon the lien; (5) filing to file a statement of retainer with the Judicial Conference for a period of approximately 21 months after being retained and incorrectly stating therein the date of his retainer; (6) changing the terms of a retainer...