Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In re Glazer
Citations: 218 A.D.2d 411; 641 N.Y.S.2d 6; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2720
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 18, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court
Richard M. Glazer, an attorney since March 29, 1961, is facing a motion for immediate suspension from the practice of law based on evidence of professional misconduct that threatens public interest. The motion stems from a complaint filed on June 15, 1995, by Richard M. Abrahams, representing beneficiaries of the estate of Earle Glazer, alleging Glazer misappropriated $80,000 from the estate. Supporting evidence includes bank records indicating Glazer drew an $81,000 check from the estate account to his personal account on March 17, 1994, and issued a personal check for $6,093 to Craig Glazer, which bounced due to insufficient funds. Glazer has not contested the allegations and has claimed to have made full restitution by September 15, 1995. The relevant regulation, 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e. 1. iii), allows for suspension if an attorney is found guilty of professional misconduct that threatens public interest, based on uncontested evidence. In his affidavit dated November 30, 1995, Glazer admits to using $86,093 from the trust and acknowledges that his actions were unethical, despite his restitution. He argues against suspension, citing mitigating circumstances, such as personal pressures related to his marriage and practice. The court references precedent, indicating that attorneys who misappropriate client funds are typically subject to disbarment unless unusual mitigating circumstances exist, while carelessness may lead to suspension rather than disbarment. Respondent acknowledges the intentional disbursement of trust account funds for personal use, rendering related case precedents inapplicable. In the Matter of Ampel, the court clarified that repayment of misappropriated funds does not absolve wrongful conduct. While past cases with mitigating factors have resulted in suspension rather than disbarment, the court finds that censure is inappropriate in this instance despite any mitigating circumstances. Evidence, including respondent's admissions and bank records, confirms the serious misconduct involving the misappropriation of over $86,000 from client beneficiaries. Consequently, it is recommended that the Committee's motion under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e. 1. iii) be granted, leading to respondent's immediate suspension from practicing law until the conclusion of pending disciplinary matters and further court order. The motion is approved by all concurring judges.