New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-18
LAWYER DISBARRED FOR
LAND DEALS WITH CITY
Continued from first page.

it will be the fault of the Bar Association
and not mine.
"The officers OF the East Bay Land
COMPANY testified in my favor on the
first charge against me- F'lannery SAID
last night in talking about his case.
"Thev were entirely satisfied with my
conduct as their attorney and I am still
their counsel"
II was understood last night that eT-
Judge Hatch, who appeared for Elan
merry before the Appellate Division,
would ask to have the case put on the
preferred calendar OF the Court OF APP
peals. so that a final decision might be
reached before the summer vacation.
The charges against the lawyer were
submitted by the court to Hamilton
Odell rs referee He held hearings on
the charges covering q period OF nearly
a wear and a half when he recommended
to the Appellate Division the disbarment
of Flannery.
The motion to dsbar FTannery was made
by the Bar Association. William ID. Guth'
RE. representing that body. argued before
the court a few weeks ago in favor OF con-
f'rming the recommendation OF the referee.
Mr.. Guthrie said: This man is not young
and inexperienced, but most SUCCESSFUL.
able and unusually shrewd. man OF IN
scrupulous cunning. The seriousness OF
the charges would warrant this court In
making n signal example of him. He
should not be permitted any longer To prey
on the public az an officer OF this court"
The beginning Of the charges against
Tlannery came when Joseph Johnson now
Fire Commissioner, an official OF the
Controllers office under Controller Metz,
called attention TO the condemnation OF SIX
acres Of land at Hunts Point. which it was
said Flannery had bought through dum-
nay for $4,000. selling it to tho city for
$500. In investigating this charge the
referee found that the lawyer not only de-
ceivod the commissioners I'm condemnation
proceedings but had not acted fairly with
the corporation from which he bought the
land through the dummy and for whom he
appeared Is counsel In the condemnation
proceedings.
Flannery ran the Berea Land Company,
or was interested I'm the concern, when, II
seems I'm turn was Interested In condeina-
lions on the Grand Boulevard. the Mahhat-
tan Bridge approach. the opening OF nun
street and in the widening OF kiVer7idc
/ Drive. The Corporation Counsel In 1891
! called attention 20 the fact that Tn" city
was buying bridge terminal property at
! from five 10 ten times m )re than It's actudl
,alue one parcel. he said. was bought III
1905 FOR 5000 and sold TO the city TOT
S2Ss, 7Ol.
The Appellate Division in its decision
written by Presiding Justice Ingrahaln told
OF one OF the transactions with which
! Flanncry was charged. A company known
az tho East Bay Land and Improvement
Company owned some propert in The
| Bronx Prior 10 December, 1901. the COM
pany learned that the city intended 10 ac-
qure the property and engaged flannery.
II was agreed that II the lawyer got the
full award and there was no assessment
against the property he WAS 10 receive Tor
his services 10 per cent OF the amount re-
covered.
Then Flannery got one Leon \. Rains II
! is alleged to negotiate with the company ne
iGspresentcd for the purchase OF IN" pop
crty, the company, Of course. being NOT
aware of the interest Of It's attorney In
! this move. Rains took title to the property
Tor sS5, O00. and Flannery received his 10
per cent, amounting to $500. The court
said that Rains was only dummy, acting
| foi FIanncry. who transferred the prop
orty 10 company organized by him.
lie continued to appear before the Com
Il, mnation Commission as attorney ~ the
East Bay Land and Improvement Company
and succeeded I'm obtaining an award OF
S2f7. 900 for the property which his dummy
! bought for sS5. 900. The Appellate Division
! called attention To the new powers ana re-
| sponsibilitles given II for the discipline "f
members Of the legal profession and added :
"If this country is To BE- governed by law
| IL IS essential that those charged with us
administration should be honest in the dis
charge OF the duties COntided 10 ana obh-
J cations imposed upon them. We do not
however rely on the power given 10y TINS
amendment I'm this proceeding"
As to F1anncry the court said, ID part
! I'll, took the titles I'm the names OF MS
! dummies without disclosing the fact that
the dummies represented him. or that the
dummies were his clerks or associates. ana
| th,n continued to conduct the proceedings
10: the valuation Of his property IN the
name Of his clients, suppressing from the
commissioners and experts who valued the
property the fact Of the purchas" ana All
facts within his knowledge that would at
10, tho ,oIua ~ tho uronprtv.'