In re Loew

Headnote

Attorney — malpractice ly.

Motion to strike the name of William N. Loew from the roll of attorneys and counselors of this court, and disqualifying him from acting as such.

It was alleged that an answer was served by William N. Loew, as attorney in an action in the Marine Court, on the last day allowed for that purpose, with so defective a verification as to justify the plaintiff’s attorneys in refusing to receive it, and to enter up judgment by default. The words omitted were, “ to be true to his own knowledge,” from the form. prescribed by the Code; and their absence rendered the verification materially defective. The charge was, that after.the answer was returned, for the reason of the defect, an erasure was made between the lines where the clause might appropriately have been inserted, for the purpose of claiming that the answer had been correctly verified, and that clause erased by the plaintiff’s attorneys in the action, so that they could return the answer and enter judgment by default; and that use was made of the answer in the Marine Court by William N. Loew, on a motion to set aside the default taken in the case. Upon that hearing a reference was ordered to ascertain the facts, and upon the proceedings thereupon had, and the affidavits produced in support of and against the present application, the ease was heard without objection in this court.

The General Term held, that the evidence was- sufficient to establish the charges, and that it presented a case of deceit and malpractice of a very gross description; that nothing less could consistently be done than the direction of an order that the name of William N. Loew be stricken from the roll of attorneys and coun

selors of this court; that he be disqualified from practising as such; that his license be surrendered to the clerk of this court and canceled; and that he pay the costs and expenses of this application.