Court Opinion

ID: 9754798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:14:27.105128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:58.337546
License: Public Domain

*197Vanderbilt, C. J.
(dissenting). The majority opinion makes no reference to the fact that on a complaint sent to me by the respondent’s client I wrote the respondent on November 6, 1956, sending him a copy of the client’s letter to me and asking for a detailed statement of facts so that I might know how to answer him.
The client’s letter read as follows:
“In November of 1954 Mr. Anthony Lanza, Attorney at Law, 1001 Broad St., Newark, agreed to handle a divorce case for me against Mrs. Patricia K. Metz. At the time that Mr.. Lanza accepted the case he advised me that it should take no longer than three months to have the ease in court. Mrs. Metz was then, and for several months following, in California and quite willing to sign the necessary papers. However, Mr. Lanza apparently did not send them to her. In March 1955 she moved to Virginia, and about in July of that year she came to New Jersey to find out from me exactly what was happening. I immediately contacted Mr. Lanza and he had her sign the necessary papers.
Prom November of 1954 to July of 1955 I was able to contact Mr. Lanza several times and on each occasion he assured me that he was doing everything possible to have the papers completed. Prom the time that the papers were signed by Mrs. Metz until February 25, 1956, Mr. Lanza did not contact me once despite countless telephone calls to his office and several to his home.
His message of February 25, 1956 read as follows:
‘This is to advise you that due a clerical error in my office, your case went off the court calendar. I am now having it restored and I shall do everything possible to expedite it.’
Prom February 25, 1956 until September 20, 1956 I received no word from Mr. Lanza again despite repeated telephone calls. A few days prior to the latter date I stopped at his office and left a note advising him that if I was not contacted immediately I would contact the Bar Association. His letter of September 20, 1956 read as follows:
‘Through a clerical error your ease went off the trial calendar without my knowing about it.
T am appearing before the judge on Tuesday morning to have the matter replaced on the calendar.
‘I will advise you in the next week or so how the case stands.’
On October 11, 1956 I reached Mr. Lanza by telephone and he advised me that he had a certificate of some kind which I had to sign immediately and return to him. He even asked if he could drive out that evening to take care of the matter. However, it was not possible for me to meet him and so he was to mail the certificate to me that same date. Prom that time to the present I have received no papers to be signed, nor any further word in this matter.
*198Mr. Lanza agreed to handle the case for me for $325.00. I paid him $200.00 as a retainer at that time.
Two years would seem to be more than sufficient time for such a matter to be settled. The burden of this whole thing and the constant aggravation of trying to get it settled have been extremely upsetting to me. My personal life and health have been jeopardized by it.
I regret having to contact you in this way, but it is as a last resort as I have no idea which course to follow now. Professional ethics would prevent my approaching another attorney.
Can you advise me if there is any way that I can receive some action? Would it be possible for me to have my fee returned and obtain my release so that I may retain another attorney? If Mr. Lanza is too busy to handle this, can’t he have someone else take care of it for him? I would prefer that he finish the case, but certainly not at his present pace.”
In my letter of Hovember 6, 1956, I stated to the respondent :
“On the facts as stated by him [the client] it would seem that you have very much neglected his case. I hope you have some explanation.”
Hot receiving any reply I again wrote the respondent on December 12, 1956, referring to my earlier letter and adding:
“Although considerably more than a month has gone by, I do not seem to have any reply from you. I am writing you now to say that unless you reply in detail by Saturday morning, December 15th, I shall have no choice but to send an investigator from the Administrative Office of the Courts to take your statement.”
I received no reply from the respondent and then asked the Administrative Director of the Courts to have some one follow up the respondent to see why he had not answered my letters.
The Administrative Director assigned the matter to Mr. Philip G. Miller of his office, who telephoned the respondent, telling him what matter he wished to discuss, and made an appointment to see him on January 3, 1957. When Mr. Miller called on the respondent on the date set, he said that he had intended to bring the file to the office but had forgotten it and left it home. He told Mr. Miller that he had first seen my letter of Hovember 6, 1956 in the first week *199of December because he had been in.Canada until then. He also said that he had been contemplating answering both my letters, but had not gotten around to it up to the time of Mr. Miller’s visit on January 3, 1957. The respondent has never answered my . letters.
The client’s case was dismissed on December 9, 1955. The respondent told Mr.’ Miller that he had endeavored to get in touch with Judge Tomasulo to see if the case could be restored or reinstated, but that he had not actually contacted him.
The respondent at this time was running a farm in Canada; prior to that he had been in the building business. His interest in the practice of law is merely incidental to his other activities.
In these circumstances I see no other choice except to vote for disbarment.
For suspension — Justices Heher, Olipitant, Waci-ieneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Weintratjb — 6.
For disbarment — -Chief Justice Vanderbilt — -1.