Court Opinion

ID: 9715788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:14:34.707448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:38.122802
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD, J.,
dissenting.
The public needs no protection from the respondent. In no sense is he a menace. His heroic efforts to rehabilitate himself have been successful. His psychiatrist is confident that Barry can now withstand the burdens of a law practice, and he reports that respondent has the general character traits of conscientiousness, sense of fairness, desire to do a good job, and a high level of responsibility.
The conclusion is inescapable that a considerable measure of blame for respondent’s predicament must fall on the shoulders of the principals in the law firm that employed him, even though he does not seek to place it there. In its presentment the local committee emphasized that respondent “was given numerous *293files to handle with little or no guidance * * It is simply inexcusable to impose on a fledgling lawyer the total responsibility for clients’ affairs without some regular supervision. It is not enough that the principals be available if needed. This sorry episode points up the need for a systematic, organized routine for periodic review of a newly admitted attorney’s files. The “sink or swim” approach is ill-suited to a high volume professional operation.
In this case the main result of the Court’s suspending respondent from the practice of law, even for the brief period of three months, will be to jeopardize a promising career and undermine this young lawyer’s initiative. He needs no suspension to remind him of the anguish his past misdeeds have brought to so many people—clients, employer, family, friends—particularly inasmuch as he is now saddled with an enormous indebtedness as a result thereof. Nor will the honor of the profession and the integrity of the bar be sullied if we treat these ethical violations with forbearance. This tragic episode, nonvolitional in nature, unmarked by greed or venality, demands no more than a public reprimand. I so vote.
For suspension —Chief Justice WILENTZ and ■ Justices PASHMAN, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O’HERN—6.
Dissenting—Justice CLIFFORD—1.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that THOMAS J. BARRY of Woodbury be suspended from the practice of law for three months and until the further order of this Court, effective August 16,1982; and it is further
ORDERED that THOMAS J. BARRY be and hereby is restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further
*294ORDERED that THOMAS J. BARRY reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for the cost of all stenographic transcripts in connection with this matter; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent comply with all the regulations of the Disciplinary Review Board governing suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys.