Case Name: In the Matter of Roland H. Long, an Attorney, Respondent; In the Matter of Edward J. Lamberton, an Attorney, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1942-04-17
Citations: 263 A.D. 658
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Roland H. Long, an Attorney, Respondent. In the Matter of Edward J. Lamberton, an Attorney, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Roland H. Long, an Attorney, Respondent. In the Matter of Edward J. Lamberton, an Attorney, Respondent.
First Department,
April 17, 1942.
S. C. Lewis of counsel [Linar Chrystie, attorney], for the petitioner.
Roland H. Long, respondent in person.
Morton Milman of counsel [Charles Eno, attorney], for the respondent Edward J. Lamberton.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
An official referee has found that the petitioner sustained the charge that the respondents employed a layman under an agreement to pay him a percentage of the net profits of their practice and that during such employment the layman brought two cases into the respondents' office. The referee states that no evidence has been presented to establish that either of these cases had been solicited by the layman. It has also been found by the referee that neither respondent intended to violate the canons of ethics or any statute relating to the splitting of fees with a layman. The evidence sustains the findings of the referee.
The respondents should be censured for violating the canons of ethics by employing a layman on a percentage basis.
Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
Respondents censured.