Case Name: In the Matter of Harry J. Coman, Admitted as Harry J. Cohen, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1948-11-01
Citations: 274 A.D. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of Harry J. Coman, Admitted as Harry J. Cohen, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 274
Pages: 300–300

Head Matter:
In the Matter of Harry J. Coman, Admitted as Harry J. Cohen, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.
First Department,
November 1, 1948.
Lewis B. Reynolds of counsel (Einar Chrystie, attorney), for petitioner.
Charles Eno for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
An official referee has reported that charges accusing respondent of having neglected to prosecute a client's action and of having failed to protect the client's interests are supported by the testimony. The record fully sustains that conclusion. The client, however, suffered no pecuniary loss as a result of respondent's neglect. Respondent also admitted his failure to file a statement of retainer in a personal injury action as required by rule 4-A of this court (Special Rules Regulating the Conduct of Attorneys and Counselors-at-Law in the First Judicial Department). Failure to comply with this rule was not willful.
In view of the many extenuating circumstances in this case, we think that a censure is sufficient punishment for respondent's misconduct.
Peck, P. J., G-lennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.
Respondent censured.