State v. Rowe

On appeal and exceptions. The respondent, a practicing attorney, was employed by one Martel, the complainant, in connection with alleged income tax deficiencies. At the outset, the respondent received from his client $100 as a “retainer.” On the same day, Martel gave him a further sum of $350 which, by the terms of the receipt therefor, was “In re compromise settlement proposed w/U. S. Treasury.” At this time the claim of the Government for unpaid taxes, penalties and interest, as stipulated by the State’s attorney, exceeded $4,000, and both lawyer and client entertained the hope that a…