Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MATTER MURRAY WHITAKER (ADMITTED AS MURRAY WIEDERKEHR) (06/18/68)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


June 18, 1968

IN THE MATTER OF MURRAY WHITAKER (ADMITTED AS MURRAY WIEDERKEHR), AN ATTORNEY, RESPONDENT. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PETITIONER

Disciplinary Proceedings instituted by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on December 3, 1956, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department. By order entered December 26, 1967, George Trosk, Esq., was appointed Referee to take testimony and report to this court.

Botein, P. J., Stevens, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ., concur.

Author: Per Curiam

 Respondent was admitted to practice in the First Judicial Department on December 3, 1956.

There were three serious charges made against respondent involving the conversion of funds deposited with him in escrow, the issuance of 36 worthless checks drawn on his personal and special accounts and the conversion of the sum of $15,000 from a client upon the representation that said sum would be invested on her behalf. In addition, respondent was charged with having unreasonably failed to co-operate with petitioner's Committee on Grievances, in its initial investigation, in that he failed to appear for a scheduled interview, failed to submit a statement to the committee explaining his position concerning the matters before it and failed to communicate with counsel for the committee. (Charge No. 3.)

The Referee has found that respondent's guilt on each of the four charges of professional misconduct has been established and the record fully supports such finding. The Referee's report is confirmed. Respondent's behavior demonstrates a pattern of consistent misconduct and a complete disinterest by him in his professional obligations. Respondent clearly lacks the character and fiitness required of an attorney at law. (Matter of Turk, 25 A.D.2d 255; Matter of Berkson, 282 App. Div. 265.) In view of the gravity of his misconduct respondent should be disbarred. We do not take into consideration respondent's failure to co-operate with the Committee on Grievances, as set forth in Charge No. 3, in assessing punishment.

Respondent should be disbarred.

Respondent disbarred effective July 18, 1968.

Disposition

Respondent disbarred effective July 18, 1968.

19680618

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.