Hyperlawhypertext legal database In re La Far 149 N.Y.S. 435

← Cases

In re La Far

149 N.Y.S. 435 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1914-10-23 Docket No. 5 English

Delivered by INGRAHAM, P. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 435
In re LA FAR.
(No. 5.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
October 23, 1914.)

Headnote

Attorney and Client (§ 44[1] ) — Misconduct of Attorney — Conversion of Client’s Money.
Where respondent, an attorney, collected money for a client and failed to account for it, but converted it to Ms own use, and Ms only excuse was that Ms wife was ill and that he was under financial embarrassment, he was guilty of professional misconduct, and will be suspended from practice for one year and until further order of the court.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. §§ 55, 56, 62; Dec. Dig. § 44.*]
Disbarment proceedings by the New York County Lawyers’ Association against Arthur B. La Far. Application for judgment on referee’s
p. 436
report finding respondent guilty of professional misconduct. Respondent suspended from practice for one year.
See, also, 153 App. Div. 894 , 137 N. Y. Supp. 1126 .
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, CLARKE, SCOTT, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.
Einar Chrystie, of New York City, for petitioner.
William R. Wilder, of New York City, for respondent.

The respondent was retained by the Bessemer Limestone Company, an Ohio corporation, to collect a claim of $402. On October 4, 1911, he collected $52, and on October 6 and 7, 1911, $64.91. On October 11th he wrote his client that he had only succeeded in collecting $64.91. Subsequently he collected further sums, and-on November 25, 1911, he received the balance of the amount due, having remitted to his client $100 on October 28, 1911. The client attempted to get a statement from the respondent, without success, most of the letters to the respondent being unanswered, but the respondent misappropriated the money, applying it to his own use. The official referee finds that the respondent misappropriated the money and deceived his client, and this charge is sustained beyond doubt. The referee’s report is therefore approved.

The respondent’s excuse is that his wife was ill with an incurable malady; that he neglected his business and was under financial embarrassment. He was, however, able to collect and spend his client’s money, and there is no excuse for his deceiving his client. As this is the first charge against the respondent, and in view of the conditions existing, we feel that we are justified in not disbarring him, and he will be suspended from practice for one year, and until the further order of the court, with leave to the respondent to apply for reinstatement at the expiration of such period, upon showing that he has actually abstained from practice and has otherwise properly conducted himself. All concur.