Suffolk County Bar Ass'n v. La Freniere

• Decision Date: 15 November 1966
• Parties: In the Matter of SUFFOLK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. Edward LA FRENIERE, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 656

274 N.Y.S.2d 656

26 A.D.2d 946

In the Matter of SUFFOLK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. Edward LA FRENIERE, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Nov. 15, 1966.

Before UGHETTA, Acting P.J., and CHRIST, RABIN, BENJAMIN, and HILL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

This is a proceeding to discipline respondent, an attorney, for professional misconduct. Pursuant to orders of this court, a Justice of the Supreme Court has heard the issues and has filed his report, a copy of which was served on respondent. Petitioner now moves to confirm so much of the report as sustains the charges against respondent, to disaffirm so much thereof as fails to sustain the charges, and to discipline respondent. Respondent, who was admitted to the Bar by this court on February 21, 1934, appeared with counsel upon the hearing, presented proofs, but has submitted no papers in opposition to this motion.

There was 13 charges. Charges 2 and 3 in the supplemental petition were abandoned at the hearing. Charge 5 of the original petition was found not proved by the reporting Justice. We concur and this charge is dismissed. The reporting Justice has made findings of guilt with respect to all the remaining charges, except as to charge 1, which he found was not sustained. In our opinion, all said remaining charges, including said charge 1, were fully and completely established.

Charge 1 in the original petition was that respondent had received and retained a total of $250 from a client as a fee for proceeding with said client's appeal from a condemnation award, but that respondent failed to perform the necessary services, with the result that the appeal was dismissed. The reporting Justice concluded that there was not sufficient upon which to find that the charge was sustained. We find that (1) respondent received $150 in 1961 to proceed with the appeal; (2) the appeal was dismissed on January 5, 1962 and, after the dismissal was vacated, was again dismissed on March 5, 1962; (3) nevertheless, on March 7, 1963 respondent received another $100 without any understanding as to the course of action to be taken. In our opinion, the charge was sustained.

Charge 2 was that respondent neglected to account to a client for moneys received as the result of litigation and that he failed to deal properly with the Bar Association after complaint was made. With respect to this charge, the reporting Justice found that (1) respondent was retained by the client before June 18, 1960 to collect $9,000 from a third person; (2) the matter was settled and on April 2, 1962 respondent received a check made payable to himself and the client; (3) although the client never signed the settlement check, the check cleared the drawee bank; (4) respondent repeatedly told his client over a period of one year that the matter had not been settled and the money had not been received; (5) on April 7, 1964 the client received a $4,000 check, together with a bill for $2,000 for his fee; and (6) the agreed amount of the fee in the event of settlement without trial was a few hundred dollars. In our opinion, respondent failed properly to account to the client for the moneys received and was untruthful and evasive in the Bar Association's investigation of the matter.

Charge 3 is that respondent was retained by a client to proceed with an appeal in a criminal matter and to obtain a certificate of reasonable doubt and was paid $500; that he failed to render the service or to return the fee; that he made misrepresentations to the client about the status of the case; that he attempted to coerce her into withdrawing her complaint to the Bar Association; and that he failed to make answer to the Bar Association in the form requested. In our opinion, the charge was established in all respects.

...