Alonzo, In re

• Decision Date: 10 April 1969
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 341
• Citation: 223 So.2d 585,284 Ala. 183
• Parties: In the Matter of Frank O. ALONZO, Attorney at Law.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 585

223 So.2d 585

284 Ala. 183

In the Matter of Frank O. ALONZO, Attorney at Law.

3 Div. 341.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

April 10, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1969.

Thos. M. Hass, Mobile, for appellant.

Wm. H. Morrow, Jr., Gen. Counsel for Ala. State Bar.

HARWOOD, Justice.

This is a review of a disciplinary proceeding instituted by the Grievance Committee of the Alabama State Bar against Frank O. Alonzo.

The complaint contained three specifications or charges.

Charge 1 averred that from 1 January 1966 through 16 January 1966, Frank O. Alonzo, as a member of the law firm of Alonzo and Alonzo, comprised of Frank O. Alonzo and Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., permitted the use of his name by Mobile Adjustment Service, Inc., a Corporation, which was not licensed to practice law; that in so doing Frank O. Alonzo was guilty of violating Rule 11 of § A of the Amended Rules Governing Conduct of Attorneys in Alabama forbidding a person admitted to practice law in Alabama to permit the use of his name as attorney by any other person or corporation other than a person duly licensed as an attorney.

Charge 2 alleges that subsequent to November 1966, and prior to 16 January 1967, Frank O. Alonzo demanded a substantial increase in a monthly retainer fee being paid to the firm of Alonzo and Alonzo, or to Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., his brother and law partner, by Mobile Adjustment Service, Inc., and offered to extend preferential treatment to Mobile Adjustment Service, Inc., in the trial of its cases in the Court of General Sessions of Mobile and the Inferior Civil Court of Mobile, after he took oath of office as judge of said courts; and at the same time and in connection with the demand for the increased retainer, threatened to deny to Mobile Adjustment Service, Inc., the fair and impartial use of said courts after he assumed the duties of judge of said courts, if Mobile Adjustment Service, Inc., refused to accede to his demands for an increase in said retainer; that in doing said acts Frank O. Alonzo was guilty of violating Rule 33, Section A of the Amended Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Alabama which provides that no member of the Bar of Alabama shall 'Be guilty of any deceit or willful misconduct in his profession.'

Charge 3 alleges that in doing the things described in Charges 1 and 2, Frank O. Alonzo was guilty of conduct unbecoming an attorney at law.

No pleading or answer was filed by Frank O. Alonzo to these charges.

Honorable Irvin J. Langford was duly appointed commissioner to take testimony on the charges, and a hearing was had before said commissioner on 7 and 8 August 1967.

The evidence adduced before Commissioner Langford consists in the main of transcriptions of tape recorded telephone conversations between Ben F. Stokes and Frank O. Alonzo, although other testimonial and documentary evidence of a corroborative nature was presented.

The evidence tends to show that Stokes, a practicing attorney in Mobile, and Frank O. Alonzo, who was admitted to the bar in 1961, had for a number of years been close friends. In the general election in November 1966, Alonzo had been elected as one of the judges of the Court of General Sessions of Mobile County. As such he was ex officio judge of the Inferior Civil Court of Mobile County. Stokes had been most active in Alonzo's campaign for the judgeship, and his client, Mobile Adjustment Service Inc., had been a liberal contributor to Alonzo's campaign.

Alonzo was sworn in as judge of the Court of General Sessions on 16 January 1967.

It appears that from 1 January 1966 through 16 January 1967, there was sent out to debtors on accounts handled by the Mobile Adjustment Service, Inc., a socalled 'law letter.' This letter was a collection letter and was on the stationery of Alonzo and Alonzo and signed by Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., a partner of Frank O. Alonzo. The Mobile Adjustment Service Inc., paid $100 per month for the use of the Alonzo firm name, and at least for a part of the time the letters were prepared and mailed from the Service Company's office. The bulk of the collection business of Service Company consisted of past due accounts owed physicians and hospitals in the Mobile area.

On 12 January 1967, Stokes and Alonzo engaged in a telephone conversation. Alonzo told Stokes that he wanted the $100 per month retainer paid to his brother and law partner Reynolds Alonzo, increased to $350 per month--and that he would make the Service Company pay this increase or 'hurt' them in court. Stokes told Alonzo this was a matter between him, Reynolds Alonzo, and the Service Company and he would have to contact the Service Company directly.

Stokes made a written memorandum of this conversation upon its completion, and the next day purchased a tape recording device and attached it to his telephone.

Thereafter there were numerous tape recorded telephone conversations between Stokes and Alonzo. On 13 January 1967, Stokes called Alonzo and asked him if he was going to hurt him. Alonzo assured Stokes he would suffer no loss. Stokes asked whether or not Alonzo had discussed with 'Jerry' or 'Gordon' (operators of the Mobile Adjustment Service), the matter of increasing the retainer, and Alonzo replied 'No,' that actions speak louder than words. Alonzo then stated that he would hold the assignments of the debts invalid, and would require every doctor to testify in person concerning the reasonableness of the charges represented by the bills assigned to Adjustment Service.

On 26 January 1967, some ten days after Alonzo had become presiding judge of the Court of General Sessions, and ex officio judge of the Inferior Civil Court of Mobile County, Stokes again called Alonzo and again inquired if Alonzo had discussed the increase of the fee to be paid Reynolds Alonzo with 'Jerry' or 'Gordon,' and Alonzo again replied 'No.' Alonzo further stated that he was going to have all the S. H. Arnold cases put on his docket and he was going to deny judgments in those cases and that he was going to rule that the assignments to Arnold of the claims were invalid; that the help he could give Mobile Adjustment Service in the next six years would more than pay the $250 increase in the retainer, and that this help would be within the limits of the law. Alonzo further told Stokes that he was going to request a newspaper reporter to do an article on the activities of the Mobile Adjustment Service.

Stokes next conversed with Alonzo in the courthouse on 30 January 1967. In this conversation Stokes advised Alonzo that Mobile Adjustment Service was not going to increase the retainer. Alonzo then told Stokes that he was going to dismiss all cases filed under assignments of the debts and that the first action would be taken on 1 February 1967 in the Inferior Court.

On 1 February 1967, Stokes again called Alonzo. Alonzo inquired of Stokes what cases he handled that did not involve Mobile Adjustment Service. He reiterated that he would require all physicians and hospitals having suits in his court to put on testimony to show the reasonableness of their charges. Alonzo stated. 'I'm not going to do anything outside the law, but I'm gonna make life miserable for them for a little while.' There was another conversation between Stokes and Alonzo on 15 February 1967, which is largely repetitive of the prior conversations.

On 21 February 1967, Stokes called Alonzo and discussed the possibility of Stokes filing a mandamus action against Alonzo. Near the end of this conversation Stokes asked Alonzo if the increase of the retainer to $350 per month would help, to which Alonzo replied, 'Things are gonna be so sweet and nice you just * * * we can go back to filing joint suits and just doing all sorts of things to make life easy and nice and wonderful.'

On 26 February 1967, Stokes called Alonzo and informed him that the Mobile Adjustment Service was going to increase the retainer of Reynolds T. Alonzo to $350 per month and stated that Mobile Adjustment Service would then want what was coming to them and Alonzo stated they would get even better than preferential treatment. Stokes told Alonzo that $100 had already been paid and Alonzo denied knowledge of this payment, but stated that he would check and have Reynolds call, because 'anything they do is strictly with Reynolds.' He instructed Stokes to have the check made payable to Reynolds Alonzo since his name was on the letterhead. Stokes then inquired about the involuntary non suits already entered and was advised to come down and judgments would be entered.

Further evidence shows that after the payment of $250 increase in retainer to Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., in the form of a check, which was after the entry of the involuntary non suits, the said check was deposited to the joint account of Alonzo and Alonzo, as was a second check in the amount of $350 dated 13 March 1967, payable to Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr.

The evidence further shows that after the payment of the increase of the retainer to Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., the entries of involuntary non suits which had been entered in the cases in which the Mobile Adjustment Service was interested, were changed and judgments were awarded to the plaintiff in these cases.

Thus there was substantial evidence presented by the Grievance Committee in the proceedings below tending to show that in the interim between his election in November 1966, and his assuming the judgeship on 16 January 1967, this appellant concocted a scheme to extort from Mobile Service an increase in the retainer paid for use of the 'law letter' mailed to debtors, said letters were on the stationery of Alonzo and Alonzo during the time the appellant was engaged in the practice of law with his brother Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., and bore the signature of Reynolds T. Alonzo, Jr., only. The extortion was to be forced by appellant's actions after he assumed the judgeship. While Mobile Service at first refused to agree to pay the demanded...