Koptik, In re
| Decision Date | 18 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 31309,31309 |
| Citation | 92 N.E.2d 462,406 Ill. 141 |
| Parties | In re KOPTIK. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Charles Leviton, of Chicago, amicus curiae.
Gerald J. Koptik, of Berwyn, pro se.
The Board of Managers and the Committee on Grievances of the Chicago Bar Association, Commissioners of the Supreme Court of Illinois, filed a complaint against Gerald J. Koptik, attorney at law, for unethical and unprofessional practices. Evidence was heard and reported to the Supreme Court, and a recommendation made by the Board of Managers that the said Gerald J. Koptik be disbarred.
The evidence is rather voluminous, and is carefully and accurately abstracted in the report and the recommendation of the Board of Managers. Briefs are filed by both parties. The evidence shows that Koptik was admitted to the bar in October, 1940, and was a graduate of an accredited law school. He immediately commenced the practice of law, and in 1944 became a member of the firm of Lescher & Koptik of Chicago. In 1945 be was retained by a Mrs. Kohout to proceed with the foreclosure of a $2200 mortgage, which was then in the course of foreclosure.
The evidence discloses, without much contradiction, that he received from Mrs. Kohout several sums of money: In February, 1945, $350; In May, 1946, $1200, and in the same month of that year $925. The first sum was to take care of costs and expenses, and the second sum was to purchase the equity of redemption from the mortgagee, and the third sum was to take care of taxes, tax sales and forfeitures. The evidence discloses that he did not acquire the equity of redemption, nor did he pay the defaulted taxes; and in fact, Mrs. Kohout was compelled to employ another attorney to proceed with the foreclosure. When called upon for an accounting, Koptik claimed his fee was $1000, but what he did to earn a fee of $1000, or, for that matter, anything in the foreclosure matter does not appear from the record. In our opinion the committee has dealt generously with Koptik in holding him liable for the conversion of only $1262.95. But this is arrived at after allowing him credit for $1000 fees. We think the evidence justifies the conclusion that the conversion to his own use was nearer $2000 rather than the amount found by the committee.
The evidence discloses that upon another occasion he represented Otis Williamson and John A. Anderson, employees of the Continental Foundry and Machine Company, in making a claim for double damages for overtime work. The suit was filed and tried in the United States Court in 1946, and respondent's arrangement was to receive a fee upon a contingent basis, and there was to be no fee paid unless he was successful in the litigation. The court awarded a verdict in favor of the defendant. Respondent advised his clients to take an appeal, and suggested there was good probability of reversing the judgment, and received from his clients the sum of $500 to prepare a record upon appeal. He never prepared a record, and never took an appeal, and admitted that he knew from a moral standpoint he should return the $500 that he received from his clients.
During the time that the appeal should have been taken, upon inquiry from his clients he assured them that the appeal was progressing nicely. When his clients discovered that no appeal had been taken they made a demand upon him for negligence, and he thereupon entered into an agreement with them that they each had sustained damages because of his neglect, and gave them each a note for $3500. There is no evidence in the record that the respondent returned the $500, although he testified he offered to do so. Upon the notes of $3500, the sum of $100 was paid upon the Anderson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahern, In re, 37054
... ... Settlements with clients do not preclude inquiry into the ... moral and professional quality of an attorney's acts prior to and in connection with the settlements. In re Resenberg, 413 Ill. 567, 573, 110 N.E.2d 186; In re Koptik, 406 Ill. 141, 144, 92 N.E.2d 462 ... In connection with the Ulas complaint, respondent filed no answer with the commissioners, did not appear and introduced no evidence in his behalf. These omissions he now explains by stating his actions had been honest and needed no defense ... ...
-
Rosenberg, In re, 32288
... ... In re Koptik, 406 Ill. 141, 92 N.E.2d 462; People ex rel. Wayman v. Chamberlain, 242 Ill. 260, 89 N.E. 994 ... Finally, stating that the commissioners have acted prematurely, respondent represents that the issue raised by Futterman's complaint to the bar association is identical with the issue ... ...
-
Melin, In re
...amounts to 'moral turpitude * * * sufficient to merit * * * disbarment.' In re Rieger, 402 Ill. 483, 84 N.E.2d 439, 440; In re Koptik, 406 Ill. 141, 92 N.E.2d 462; In re Roth, 398 Ill. 131, 75 N.E.2d 278; In re Both, 376 Ill. 177, 33 N.E.2d 213. It is true that in this case no specific inte......
-
Clark, In re
... ... In re Thomson, 3 Ill.2d 308, 121 N.E.2d 490; In re Rosenberg, 413 Ill. 567, 110 N.E.2d 186; In re Yablunky, 407 Ill. 111, 94 N.E.2d 841; In re Koptik, 406 Ill. 141, 92 N.E.2d 462; In re Rieger, 402 Ill. 483, 84 N.E.2d 439 ... Rule 59 of this court provides for investigations concerning practices of attorneys 'which tend to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts and the legal profession into disrepute.' ... ...