
    In re GOLDBERG.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    July 13, 1894.)
    1. Attorney and Client—Misconduct op Attorney.
    An attorney is guilty of professional misconduct where he alters an-undertaking which had been used on an unsuccessful application for art-attachment, and uses it, as altered, on an application to another court.
    2. Same—Punishment—Suspension prom Practice.
    Where the attorney was young and inexperienced, he will not be disbarred for such misconduct, but will he suspended from practice for a-substantial period.
    Proceeding to disbar E. Townsend Goldberg, an attorney at law.
    Argued before FOLLETT and BARRETT, JJ.
    Frederick S. Wait, designated by the court.
    George W. Stephens, for Goldberg.
   PER CURIAM.

In this matter the court finds as a fact that the-attorney altered the undertaking which was used upon the unsuccessful application to the presiding justice, and thereafter, without procuring it to be re-executed or reaclmowledged, used such altered'. undertaking upon an application for an attachment to a judge of the court of common pleas. Upon this fact, without passing upon ■the other charges, the court adjudges that the attorney was guilty •of professional misconduct. As to the measure of punishment, while it is undoubtedly a case for discipline, it is not, in view of the attorney’s youth and inexperience, a case for the extreme penalty •of disbarment. That would wreck this young man’s entire life. When he fell he had been admitted to the bar less than a year. He lias yet ample time to redeem himself, and he should be afforded the opportunity to do so. He will be sufficiently punished, and the honor of the profession vindicated, by judgment of suspension for ■a substantial period. The court leaves him the hope of redemption, and an incentive to work for its realization. The judgment is that the attorney be suspended from practice for two years.  