In re Disbarment of Abe S. Ginsberg
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1938, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- In re Disbarment of Abraham H. Karatz (Minn. 1938)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is enough to compel judgment of disbarment that the accused has been convicted of a felony — attempted grand larceny. He ap *548 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 of law with the privilege of applying for a removal of the suspension, upon a proper showing at the expiration of one year. In re Removal of Ginsberg, 141 Minn. 271, 169 N. W. 787. The record now before us shows that the indulgence granted him when we lifted the suspension ivas ill deserved.
Let judgment of disbarment be entered forthwith.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.