Reape, In re

• Decision Date: 28 March 1967
• Citation: 27 A.D.2d 275,278 N.Y.S.2d 246
• Parties: In the Matter of Wilfred REAPE (Admitted as Wilfred V. Reape), an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 246

278 N.Y.S.2d 246

27 A.D.2d 275

In the Matter of Wilfred REAPE (Admitted as Wilfred V.

Reape), an Attorney, Respondent.

Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 28, 1967.

Robert F. condon, New York City, of counsel (John G. Bonomi, New York City, attorney), for petitioner Association of Bar of City of New York.

Respondent pro se.

Before BOTEIN, P.J., and STEVENS, EAGER, STEUER, and TILZER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the First Department on March 14, 1938. In prior disciplinary proceedings instituted by The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, he admitted the conversion of the funds of two clients and the issuance of some 22 checks during a two months' period which were returned for insufficient funds; and by order of this court, entered March 21, 1963, he was suspended from practice for a period of six months (18 A.D.2d 132, 238 N.Y.S.2d 862). On December 19, 1963, this court denied respondent's motion for reinstatement, without prejudice to renewal after expiration of one year, for conversion of a settlement check received by him subsequent to the entry of the order of suspension, and for accepting a retainer from a client during the period of suspension. (See 20 A.D.2d 539.) The respondent was reinstated by order of this court on January 28, 1965. (See 23 A.D.2d 495.)

In the present proceeding instituted by The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the charge is that in or about June 1965, the respondent received an insurance company settlement check for $2,000 payable jointly to his client and to himself, as attorney; that, after procuring his client's endorsement on the check and cashing it, he failed to deposit the moneys in a special account as required and failed to remit the proceeds to his client; and that he converted the proceeds to his own use without authority from his client. Further, it was charged that the respondent failed to file a closing statement as required by law.

The Referee appointed by this court to hear the charges against the respondent has found that they were in all respects sustained. The respondent, in his testimony before the Referee, admitted cashing the $2,000 check instead of depositing it in a special account. Respondent testified that, after deducting $900 as his fee, he used for his own purposes $300 of the $1,100 balance due his client; that he placed and kept the remaining $800 in...