Case ID: nys_126/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re SHEEHAN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    December 16, 1910.)'
    Attoeney and Client (§44)—Conduct oe Attoeney—Discipline.
    An attorney, having received certain money from a client to be applied to the premiums of certain policies, appropriated it to his own use, and subsequently sued his client for services, on which he credited the amount received and obtained judgment for the balance. SeU, in view of such adjudication that the amount received was applicable to the payment of fees, he was not guilty of such misconduct as would justify the court in disciplining him in failing to apply the money to the payment of the-premiums.
    [Ed. Note.—For other eases, see Attorney and Client, Dec. Dig. § 44.*].
    Petition by the Bar Association to discipline Timothy Sheehan, an attorney.
    Proceeding dismissed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, SCOTT,. LAUGHLIN, and DOWLING, JJ.
    Binar Chrystie, for petitioner.
    Timothy G. Sheehan, pro se.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes-
    
   PER CURIAM.

The charge against this attorney was that he had' received the sum of $312.50 from a client to be applied to the payment of premiums on policies of fire insurance, and that he had failed to apply this sum, but had appropriated it to his own use. The attorney has submitted an answer, from which it appears that this sum was-paid to him by the client, and that the client was then indebted to him for legal services in an amount exceeding this sum; that he subsequently commenced an action against the client for the legal services,, upon which he credited this amount, and he has obtained judgment for the balance claimed. There having been an adjudication in that action that the amount received by the respondent was applicable to the payment of the amount due to the respondent from his client, the application of that amount to the client’s indebtedness was not such misconduct as would justify the court in disciplining the attorney, and therefore this proceeding will be dismissed.