
    In re STERN.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    March 11, 1910.)
    1. Attorney and Client (§ 54)—Charges of Unprofessional Conduct—: Proceedings.
    Ordinarily, upon charges of unprofessional conduct against an attorney, and an answer, a reference is ordered to ascertain and report the facts.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attorney and Client, Cent. Dig. § 73; Dec. Dig. § 54.]
    2. Attorney and Client (§ 54)—Charges Against Attorney.
    The duty of the Supreme Court towards members of the bar is not only to administer discipline to those found to be guilty of unprofessional conduct, but to protect the reputation of those attacked upon frivolous or malicious charges.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Attorney and 'Client, Dec. Dig. § 54.]
    Judicial proceedings in the matter of charges of unprofessional conduct against Nathan D. Stern, an attorney.
    Charges dismissed.
    Argued before CLARKE, McLAUGHLIN, LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
    Leo Levy, for petitioner.
    John S- Davenport, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   CLARKE, J.

Charges of unprofessional conduct having been filed against the respondent, he has interposed a voluminous answer, accompanied by supporting affidavits and exhibits. Ordinarily, upon charges and an answer, a reference is ordered to ascertain and report the facts. We do not think such course necessary in this matter. The charges are not presented by the Association of the Bar upon a preliminary examination by its grievance committee, but by a private prosecutor, a former client of the respondent, who is and has been engaged in a bitter legal contest with the respondent, having to do, not with the professional relation of the respondent to him, but arising from the disappointment of the complainant at the provisions of the will of his deceased daughter, in which the respondent was named as a legatee.

The first charge is frivolous. The second and the third have been the subjects of investigation- in court proceedings which resulted favorably to the respondent. They are, upon their face, serious; but they are so because of most important omissions in the_ narrative of facts intended to support them, and are so fully met and disposed of by the answering papers as in our judgment to render them unworthy of further consideration. The motive of the attack is obvious, its animus apparent, and should not be permitted to succeed.

The duty of this court towards the members of the bar, its officers, is not only to administer discipline to those found to be guilty of unprofessional conduct, but to protect the reputation of those attacked upon frivolous or malicious charges. To dignify these charges by referring them would be to permit the purpose of the attack to be accomplished to a considerable measure.

We find nothing to justify the charge of unprofessional conduct, and nothing to investigate, and the charges are hence dismissed. All concur.  