Have Questions? Contact Us.
Since its inception, NYCLA has been at the forefront of most legal debates in the country. We have provided legal education for more than 40 years.
ETHICS OPINION 208
NUMBER 208 1922
Question. In the opinion of the Committee is it improper for an attorney for an unsuccessful litigant, against whom a verdict has been rendered upon which a judgment against his client can he forthwith entered in due course, to apply to the Court, upon the rendition of the verdict, for a stay of execution upon the judgment (without security) and upon such application to obtain such stay, when he knows that another judgment has already been entered against his client upon which execution may immediately issue, without informing the Court, or his adversary, at the time of the application, of these facts which (the Committee may assume) to the knowledge of the attorney will imperil the collection of the judgment so stayed at the expiration of the stay so obtained.
Answer. The Committee assumes that the action has been defended in good faith, and that the motion for a stay is such an one as is usually made upon the rendition of a verdict where the unsuccessful attorney in good faith desires to protect his client pending investigation of possible grounds for appeal. In such case, the Committee is of opinion that the unsuccessful attorney may regard the verdict as inconclusive of the successful party’s right to collect his judgment forthwith, and, therefore, may properly apply for and obtain the stay without informing the Court or his adversary of the other judgment. If, in passing upon the motion for a stay, the question of solvency is raised, the attorney, of course, should refrain from giving any misleading information.