Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shapiro v. Drummond, Woodsum, Plimpton & MacMahon

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided December 23, 1988Published

1DissentHornby, Justice

The result the Court reaches may be sound legislative policy, but that is not the question before us. And we cannot arrive at the meaning of this ancient statute providing a summary process for the “Recovery of Collection Payments from Attorneys” by applying the ethical standards for the behavior of lawyers that the Supreme Judicial Court has more recently laid down in the Maine Bar Rules. Instead, we must confront directly the language of the statute which is alarmingly (for lawyers) simple. Specifically, if a lawyer “receives money ... on a claim left with him for collection or settlement…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re PaschalSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
  2. Union Building & Saving Ass'n v. SoderquistSupreme Court of Iowa · 1901
  3. Balogh v. JacksonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  4. People's Savings Bank v. ChesleySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1942
  5. State v. GrantSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1985

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API