Snitoff, In re
| Decision Date | 20 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 43848,43848 |
| Citation | 53 Ill.2d 50,289 N.E.2d 428 |
| Parties | In re Lee J. SNITOFF, Attorney, Respondent. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Peter Fitzpatrick, Alfred L. O'Connor, and Michael Fitzpatrick, Chicago, for respondent.
John Cadwalader Menk, Chicago, for amicus curiae.
The Board of Managers of the Chicago Bar Association and the association's Committee on Grievances have recommended that Lee J. Snitoff, who was admitted to the practice of law in 1955, be disbarred. Under Supreme Court Rule 751 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 110A, par. 751) the members of the Board and of the Committee serve as commissioners of this court in matters relating to the discipline of members of the bar. A single division of the Committee had recommended that the respondent be suspended from practice for a period of five years, but the full committee amended this recommendation to one that the respondent be disbarred. The recommendation of disbarment was approved by the Board of Managers.
The Committee on Grievances found that in five instances the respondent had drawn worthless checks in favor of clients and presented them as the proceeds from personal injury settlements. In some cases worthless checks had been successively drawn and presented. In a separate instance the Committee found that the respondent had settled a personal injury matter but had not forwarded the client's share of the settlement until about four months after the settlement and the attorney's receiving its proceeds. The matter was settled on February 16, 1968, and the client testified that he was unaware of the settlement until June, 1968, when a friend informed him of it. The respondent said that he had written several letters to the client asking him to come to his office to receive his share of the settlement, but the client denied having received any such letters. The respondent did not produce copies of the letters he said he had written. After the client filed a complaint with the Chicago Bar Association he received his share of the proceeds. The Committee found in another instance that the respondent had settled a personal injury claim but had failed to remit the full amount to which the client was entitled and had failed to satisfy certain medical expenses of the client. The explanation offered by the respondent was that he had the impression that a personal loan he believed he had made to the client was outstanding. After the client complained to the Chicago Bar Association she received the balance of her share of the settlement. She denied the respondent had ever made any loan to her. The respondent testified that it had taken from April 20, 1967, to August 23, 1967, to ascertain that he had not made such loan. Another finding of the Committee was that the respondent had given the Peoples Gas Light and Coke Co., which had obtained a judgment against him, an insufficient funds check to obtain a satisfaction of judgment. With respect to all of these findings the Committee found that the conduct of the respondent had brought the legal profession into disrepute. It found, too, in all of the counts, except two, which involved the respondent's conduct with clients, that his conduct had constituted conversion of clients' funds. The Committee also found that Dr. Harold F. Rabin, to whom the respondent had referred clients for medical services, had been given insufficient funds checks by the respondent. The respondent had undertaken to protect the physician's claims for services by withholding funds from settlements effected in personal injury cases sufficient to satisfy the charges of Dr. Rabin for professional services. Five such checks, totaling about $5400, were drawn and given to Dr. Rabin. It would appear that the respondent satisfied Dr. Rabin's claims and it appears that the physician requested his attorney to withdraw the complaint he had filed with the Chicago Bar Association. The request was refused.
The Committee in its findings noted that the respondent had made full restitution in all of the matters which had been presented to and considered by the Committee.
There was a finding by the Committee that the evidence presented against the respondent: 'Indicates a pattern of conduct over a period of three years (including during the pendency of these proceedings) of a continuing and consistent disregard for the property rights of his clients and his duties and obligations to his clients, which brings the legal profession into disrepute.'
Basically, the respondent's plea here is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMahon v. Shea
...C.J.S. Attorney and Client, § 261 (1980), citing Wade v. Clemmons, 84 Misc.2d 822, 377 N.Y.S.2d 415 (1975). See also: In re Snitoff, 53 Ill.2d 50, 289 N.E.2d 428 (1972), cert. denied, Snitoff v. Board of Managers of Chicago Bar Assn., 412 U.S. 906, 93 S.Ct. 2292, 36 L.Ed.2d 971 (1973). As o......
-
Cohen, In re
... ... 411, 454 N.E.2d 271, In re Grant (1982), 89 Ill.2d 247, 60 Ill.Dec. 462, 433 N.E.2d 259, In re Kesler (1982), 89 Ill.2d 151, 60 Ill.Dec. 601, 433 N.E.2d 643, In re Feldman (1982), 89 Ill.2d 7, 59 Ill.Dec. 103, 431 N.E.2d 388, In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill.2d 50, 289 N.E.2d 428, or In re Gartland (1970), 47 Ill.2d 177, 265 N.E.2d 148, where the charge was conversion of funds and the sanction imposed was disbarment or suspension for one year or longer. For example, in In re Grant (1982), 89 Ill.2d 247, 60 Ill.Dec. 462, 433 N.E.2d 259, ... ...
-
Grant, In re
...Our cases involving commingling or commingling and conversion reveal disciplinary action ranging from disbarment (In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill.2d 50, 289 N.E.2d 428; In re Lingle (1963), 27 Ill.2d 459, 180 N.E.2d 342) to censure (In re Clayter (1980), 78 Ill.2d 276, 35 Ill.Dec. 790, 399 N.E......
-
Armentrout, In re
...660, 387 N.E.2d 316, (disbarment); In re Stillo (1977), 68 Ill.2d 49, 11 Ill.Dec. 289, 368 N.E.2d 897 (disbarment); In re Snitoff (1972), 53 Ill.2d 50, 289 N.E.2d 428 In re Anglin (1970), 46 Ill.2d 261, 265 N.E.2d 866 (five-year suspension).) I do not understand why the fraudulent and decei......