Attorney General v. Gorson
| Decision Date | 22 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 434. |
| Citation | 183 S.E. 392,209 N.C. 320 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL v. GORSON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Proceeding by the State of North Carolina, on the relation of Dennis G Brummitt, Attorney General, against Harry A. Gorson for revocation of license to practice law.
Respondent disbarred.
Supreme Court could revoke license to practice law where licensee fraudulently concealed from court fact that he had been disbarred in sister state on ground that he was guilty of unprofessional conduct in relation to clients involving moral turpitude.
Supreme Court could disbar attorney on ground that at time he applied for license he fraudulently represented that he had studied law in law school in state for two years.
This proceeding for the revocation of the license issued by the Supreme Court of North Carolina to Harry A. Gorson to practice law in the courts of this state, and for the disbarment of the said Harry A. Gorson, was begun by a motion in writing filed in the Supreme Court by the attorney general of North Carolina.
Pursuant to said motion, notice was issued and served on the said Harry A. Gorson, as respondent in this proceeding, ordering him to show cause, if any he had, why the said license should not be revoked, and why he should not be disbarred for the reasons set out in said motion.
In response to said notice, the respondent, Harry A. Gorson appeared in the Supreme Court and moved in writing that the proceeding be dismissed; and upon denial of his said motion the said respondent, Harry A. Gorson, filed an answer to the motion of the Attorney General, by which he raised certain issues of fact, and set up certain matters in defense to said motion.
It was thereupon ordered by the Supreme Court that the proceeding be and the same was referred to a committee composed of three members of the bar of said court, to wit, Honorable E. Frank Watson, of Burnsville, N. C.; Honorable W. R. Chambers, of Marion, N. C.; and Honorable S. J. Ervin, Jr., of Morganton N. C., with the request that said committee, after notice to the Attorney General and to the respondent, Harry A. Gorson hear evidence pertinent to the issue involved in the proceeding, and report its findings of fact to the Supreme Court, together with its recommendations as to the action of the court in the premises.
Thereafter on April 12, 1935, the committee filed a report of its action in the Supreme Court. The report is substantially as follows:
"Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, signed by the Honorable Michael Schenck, Associate Justice, and dated December 13, 1934, we, the undersigned members of the Bar of the said Supreme Court, composing the Committee to which this proceeding was referred by the said Court, met in the City of Asheville, N. C., on January 24, 1935, for the consideration of the matters referred to us in said order.
At said meeting, we heard the testimony of divers and sundry witnesses, whose evidence is found in the record. At said meeting, the Honorable T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney-General, was present representing the Attorney-General of North Carolina; the Honorable J. Will Pless, Sr., was present, representing the respondent, Harry A. Gorson.
The Committee finds the following facts:
1. The respondent, Harry A. Gorson, attended the law school at Temple University, in Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, for three years, and graduated therefrom in 1916, with the degree of L. L. B.; he was thereafter duly licensed to practice law in the State of Pennsylvania, and began the practice of law in the City of Philadelphia, in 1918. He thereafter practiced law in the Courts of the State of Pennsylvania until he was disbarred in 1929, as hereinafter set forth.
2. The respondent, Harry A. Gorson, was disbarred by a judgment and order of the Court of Common Pleas, Number Two, of Philadelphia County, in the State of Pennsylvania, on January 29, 1929, and by an order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on May 2, 1929, as set forth on pages 12 and 13 of the motion herein filed by the Attorney-General of North Carolina. Said orders of disbarment were duly entered in a disbarment proceeding duly conducted against the respondent in the Courts of the State of Pennsylvania, and were based on findings of fact as set forth on pages 5 to 12 of the motion in this proceeding. The respondent was given due notice of said proceeding and entered a general appearance therein, in person and by counsel.
3. The respondent did not practice law or engage in any business whatever from the date of his disbarment in the State of Pennsylvania, until his admission to the Bar of the State of North Carolina, as hereinafter stated. The respondent continued to reside in the State of Pennsylvania, until the early part of 1932, when he went to the State of Florida, where he remained for a few months. He moved from the State of Florida to the City of Asheville, in the State of North Carolina, in the early part of 1933.
4. On August 21, 1933, the respondent successfully passed the examination given by the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, to applicants for license to practice law in the State of North Carolina, in accordance with the Rules of said Court, and was thereafter granted license by the Supreme Court of North Carolina to practice as an attorney and counsellor-at-law in the Courts of the State of North Carolina.
5. Prior to passing said examination, and obtaining license to practice law in the State of North Carolina, the respondent filed in the Supreme Court of North Carolina a certificate of his good moral character, signed by Worth McKinney and O. K. Bennett, members of the Bar of said Court residing at Asheville, N. C., in which they certified that the said Harry A. Gorson was then well known to them, and that he was then of good moral character. At the time of the filing of said certificate, the said Worth McKinney and the said O. K. Bennett had known the respondent for from five to eight months.
The respondent also filed in the Supreme Court of North Carolina a certificate signed by Claud L. Love, Director of the Asheville University Law School, of Asheville, N. C., in which the said Claud L. Love certified that Harry A. Gorson had studied law for two years in the Asheville University Law School. The said certificate was untrue, for that the respondent had in fact attended the Asheville University Law School for only about two months.
Both the said certificates were filed by the respondent as a compliance with the Rules of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in force during the year 1933.
6. When the respondent applied to Claud L. Love, Director of the Asheville University Law School, for the proficiency certificate required by the Rules of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, as a condition precedent to his examination as an applicant for license to practice law in the Courts of the State of North Carolina, he informed the said Director that he was a graduate of the Law School of Temple University, in the State of Pennsylvania, and had been licensed to practice law in said State, but was unable to obtain license to practice law in the State of North Carolina, under the Comity Act (Code 1931, § 194), for...
To continue reading
Request your trial