In Re Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 576 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 583 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar Foundation (1993), Attorney Grievance Commission v. Glenn (1996)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 576 state decisions — followed in 28 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In Re Gavel · In Re Greenberg · State v. Muldowney · In re Harris · In Re Beckmann
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 583 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not only stealing, but also unauthorized temporary use for the lawyer's own purpose, whether or not he derives any personal gain or benefit therefrom.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Like many rules governing the behavior of lawyers, [the rule governing client funds] has its roots in the confidence and trust which clients place in their attorneys. Having sought his advice and relying on his expertise, the client entrusts the lawyer with the transaction — including the handling of the client’s funds. Whether it be a real estate closing, the establishment of a trust, the purchase of a business, the investment of funds, the receipt. of proceeds of litigation, or any one of a multi- ’ tude of other situations, it is commonplace that the work of lawyers involves possession of their clients’ funds. That possession is sometimes expedient, occasionally simply customary, but usually essential. Whatever the need may be for the lawyer’s handling of clients’ money, the client permits it because he trusts the lawyer.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen restitution is used to support' the contention that the lawyer intended to “borrow” rather than steal, it simply cloaks the mistaken premise that the unauthorized use of clients’ funds is excusable when accompanied by an intent to return them. The act is no less a crime. Lawyers who “borrow” may, it is true, be less culpable than those who had no intent to repay, but the difference is negligible in this connection. [In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451, 458 , 409 A.2d 1153 (1979) (citation omitted).]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.