Opinion
May, 1929.
Report of the official referee confirmed and charges against respondent dismissed. This case is distinguishable from Matter of Katzka ( 225 App. Div. 250) and Matter of Littick (Id. 246), in each of which there was plainly an illegal agreement between the lawyer and a layman to split fees as a consideration for the procurement of litigation by the layman. Such is not the case here. Young, Kapper and Seeger, JJ., concur; Carswell and Scudder, JJ., dissent and vote for a suspension from the practice of the law for a period consistent with Matter of Katzka ( 225 App. Div. 250) and Matter of Littick (Id. 246), between which cases and this one there is no material difference in substance.