From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Warner

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 22, 1964
203 A.2d 259 (N.J. 1964)

Opinion

Argued September 10, 1964 —

Decided September 22, 1964.

Mr. Frederick C. Vonhof for the order.

No appearance for respondent.


On order to show cause why respondent should not be disciplined.


The respondent was convicted of grand theft, a felony, in the Superior Court of California. On appeal the conviction was affirmed. People v. Warner, 134 Cal.App.2d 829, 286 P.2d 560 ( D. Ct. App. 1955). The Supreme Court of the United States denied his application for a writ of certiorari. Warner v. California, 351 U.S. 912, 76 S.Ct. 701, 100 L.Ed. 1446 (1956). The respondent has offered his resignation from the bar of this State but in the circumstances that offer is unacceptable.

The order of the court is that the name of the respondent be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

For disbarment — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

Opposed — None.


Summaries of

In re Warner

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 22, 1964
203 A.2d 259 (N.J. 1964)
Case details for

In re Warner

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF ARTHUR WARNER, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Sep 22, 1964

Citations

203 A.2d 259 (N.J. 1964)
203 A.2d 259

Citing Cases

Matter of Warner

Name of respondent stricken from roll of attorneys-at-law. Opinion reported at 43 N.J. 254.…

Matter of Goldberg

Convictions of attorneys for crimes of an equally serious nature have resulted in disbarment in New Jersey.…