Bar Ass'n of Boston v. Casey
| Decision Date | 20 June 1907 |
| Parties | BAR ASS'N OF BOSTON v. CASEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
A. D. Hill and G. B. Dabney, for petitioner.
Nason & Proctor, for respondent.
This is a petition to disbar the respondent. The respondent had due notice of the filing of the petition, and after a hearing, at which he was present and was fully heard, the presiding judge made a finding that the respondent had fraudulently apporpriated to his own use a considerable sum of money belonging to his client, and ordered that he be disbarred. The respondent appealed, and the presiding judge reported the case for the determination of the full court upon the question whether the order of disbarment was justified as matter of law. All of the evidence is in substance before us, and, after a careful examination of it we are constrained to say that in our opinion there was evidence warranting the finding of the presiding judge, and that the entry of the order of disbarment was, as matter of law justified.
The petition alleges amongst other things that the respondent has not observed the requirements of his oath of office and 'has not continued to be and is not of good moral character, and has been guilty of deceit, malpractice and other gross misconduct.' It sets forth particularly the misappropriation of money belonging to one Bruce, a client of the respondent, as the ground for the petition. Bruce was inducted for open and gross lewdness and was arrested and ordered to recognize in the sum of $800. He retained Richard J. Lane, Esq., as his attorney and through his assistance the sum of $800 which Bruce had on deposit in the Provident Institution for Savings in Boston was withdrawn, and deposited as security for Bruce's appearance, and Bruce was thereupon released. He was afterwards indicted and the same security was given for his appearance, the money being deposited with the clerk. Subsequently he was defaulted and was ordered to recognize anew in the sum of $1,000, and not being able to recognize was committed to jail. While waiting for trial in the detention room of the superior criminal court another prisoner recommended the respondent to him, and he sent for him and after a consultation the respondent consented to act for him and Mr. Lane withdrew. Bruce told the respondent about the $800 and gave him an order for it on the clerk. On presenting the order the respondent found that there was a prior order on file in favor of Mr. Lane. Thereupon the respondent prepared an assignment of the fund from Bruce to himself which was executed and delivered to him by Bruce. The assignment recited that it was 'in consideration of services rendered and to be rendered by P.J Casey as my attorney.' Bruce also at the same time gave to the respondent written authority 'to pay Mr. Lane all moneys due him for services as my attorney and charge the same to me' and also gave him an order to the clerk in Mr. Lane's favor. The result was that the clerk paid Mr. Lane $75 for what was due him, and paid over the balance, $725, to the respondent. The government had previously waived its right to take advantage of Bruce's default and have a judgment of forfeiture entered, if entitled to it, and the evidence would have warranted a finding, if material, that this was due in part at least to the efforts of the respondent. A motion to quash the indictment was filed by the respondent and was overruled, and the defendant Bruce excepted. The case came on for trial on agreed facts prepared by the respondent and the district attorney. Various rulings were asked for by the defendant, which were refused, and exceptions were taken. The case was submitted to the jury without argument on the agreed facts, and they returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant was sentenced to the house of correction for ten months. Exceptions were filed by the defendant on the same day, and a motion by the defendant to stay execution was also filed and allowed. Subsequently, acting on other advice, Bruce discharged the respondent and waived...
To continue reading
Request your trial