Legal Opinion

In Re Disbarment of Abe S. Ginsberg

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 23, 1934No. 29,446PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

It is enough to compel judgment of disbarment that the accused has been convicted of a felony — attempted grand larceny. He ap pealed from the judgment, which was affirmed here. State v. Ginsberg, 192 Minn. 241, 255 N. W. 828. In addition to the foregoing, it is not amiss to say that Mr. Ginsberg has been found guilty upon two other charges, his guilt of either of which would demonstrate-his utter unfitness to remain a member of the legal profession. This is not the first time he has been before us for discipline. He was admitted to the bar in 1911. In 1918 he was suspended from the practice…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Levings v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  2. In re the Removal of GinsbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
  3. State v. GinsbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Disbarment of Abraham H. KaratzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938

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

Powered by the Exa API