Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re Zirinsky 148 N.Y.S. 417

← Cases

In re Zirinsky

148 N.Y.S. 417 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1914-06-26 English

Contents

Majority

p. 417
In re ZIRINSKY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 26, 1914.)

Headnote

Attorney and Client (§ 41[1] )—Misconduct of Attorney—Excessive Cost Bill.
Submission of an illegal and excessive bill of costs by an attorney is a serious offense, and is misconduct justifying a reprimand, though he attempted to excuse himself on the ground of inexperience.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. § 53; Dec. Dig. § 41.*]
Proceedings against David Zirinsky, an attorney, for misconduct. On motion to confirm a referee’s report. Confirmed as modified.
See, also, 146 N. Y. Supp. 1119 .
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, RICH, STAPLETON, and PUTNAM, JJ.
Frederick W. Sparks, of Brooklyn, for the motion.
Mortimer W. Byers, of New York City, opposed.

We do not agree with the learned referee that the proceedings should be dismissed upon the theory that the attorney was not guilty of misconduct. As we said heretofore in this proceeding, the submission of an illegal and an excessive bill of costs is a serious offense. Matter of Mashbir, 44 App. Div. 632 , 60 N. Y. Supp. 451 . The attorney did not establish propriety of conduct in the taxation of his costs; for there appears no justification for the insertion of some items in his bill, and also no sufficient proof that the amounts of other items were legal or were proper. The attorney’s only excuse is inexperience, and this is not excuse, but at best palliation. While, under all the facts elicited upon the hearing, we think that the attorney should neither be disbarred nor suspended, we do think that he should be thus reprimanded formally.

The record, as thus modified, is confirmed.

STAPLETON; J., takes no part.