Brummitt v. Winburn

• Decision Date: 03 August 1934
• Docket Number: 433.
• Citation: 175 S.E. 498,206 N.C. 923
• Parties: BRUMMITT, Atty. Gen., v. WINBURN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

175 S.E. 498

206 N.C. 923

BRUMMITT, Atty. Gen., v. WINBURN.

No. 433.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

August 3, 1934

Disbarment proceeding by the State of North Carolina, upon the relation of Dennis G. Brummitt, Attorney General, against Herman Woodward Winburn, attorney at law.

Motion granted.

Federal courts' disbarring attorney did not control Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Herman Woodward Winburn was duly admitted to practice law in the state of Louisiana in 1922. Charges were preferred against him in that state on August 26, 1925. On November 23, 1925 the respondent admitted the truth of the charges, and thereupon the disbarment committee of the Supreme Court of Louisiana adopted a resolution declaring that it had information that the respondent would "within 30 days from this date, * * * apply to the Supreme Court of Louisiana for permission to have his license to practice law cancelled because of his being guilty of moral turpitude and improper conduct in the practice of law; that it is the sense of this Committee that if this is done and his license is cancelled by the Supreme Court, within the time stated, that no further proceedings be had by this Committee."

On December 12, 1925, respondent filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Louisiana stating that "he wished to discontinue the practice of law, that the license granted him was no longer necessary and that he desired it be revoked * * * and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys."

In October, 1926, the respondent became a citizen of Greensboro N. C., secured employment, and discharged the duties thereof with diligence and credit.

At the fall term of 1928, this court, upon written examination, duly issued a license to practice law to respondent, and thereafter he appeared in the state and federal courts.

On June 2, 1931, Winburn applied for admission to practice in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. In the application two questions, among others, were propounded, to wit: "(E) If admitted, have any charges ever been preferred against you as attorney and counsellor at law? (F) If so, with what results?"

The respondent answered the first question "Yes," and the second, "Dismissed by Committee after matter investigated."

Winburn filed an application for admission to practice in the Supreme Court of the United States on October 14, 1931. Questions propounded in said application, among others, were as follows:

"(7) State courts of last resort to which applicant has been admitted to practice.

(8) State places where applicant has been a practitioner."

The respondent answered the seventh question as follows: "Supreme Court of North Carolina, August 20, 1928." In reply to the eighth query, he stated: ""Greensboro, North Carolina, and Washington, D. C."

The attention of the Supreme Court of the United States was directed to the career of Winburn in New Orleans, La., and thereupon said court appointed a committee of three eminent and distinguished members of the bar to investigate the status of applicant and make recommendations. After respondent had been fully heard in his own defense, the said committee, after reciting the pertinent facts, found "that the respondent is an unfit person to practice law at the bar of this court." Thereafter, on October 9, 1933, the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Hughes, said:

"Being of the opinion that the said Herman Woodward Winburn has been guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, and that he is an unfit person to practice at the bar of this court,

Now, therefore, it is ordered that the said Herman Woodward Winburn be, and he is hereby, disbarred from the further practice of the law in this court."

Subsequently, respondent has been disbarred by the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In November, 1933, the Attorney General of this state filed a motion and petition in the Supreme Court of North Carolina for the purpose of requiring Winburn to show cause why he should not be disbarred "from the practice of law in the State of North Carolina * * * and his name stricken from the rolls of practicing attorneys in this Court and in the other courts of said state."

Thereupon this court caused a citation to issue to respondent "to file an answer by December 5th, 1933, if so advised."

An answer was duly filed, and the court appointed Hon. Joseph B. Cheshire, Jr., Hon. L. T. Hartsell, and Hon. R. W. Herring, eminent members of the bar of North Carolina and regularly practicing in this court, to conduct a hearing or hearings, find the facts, and report to this court.

After hearing the respondent and his counsel, this committee filed a report in this court on the 18th day of May, 1934. This report states the facts substantially as hereinbefore mentioned, and upon such facts so found the committee unanimously recommended that the respondent "be disbarred from further practice before this court."

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

James S. Manning, of Raleigh, and Robt. D. Douglas, of Greensboro, for respondent.

BROGDEN Justice.

The foregoing facts and procedures produce for consideration two questions of law, to wit:

(1) Has this court, at this time, the power to revoke a law license and disbar an attorney?

(2) Do the facts warrant and justify such revocation and disbarment?

The weight of judicial authority in this country establishes the inherent power of the courts to revoke licenses granted to attorneys and to disbar them from the practice. The Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. (71 U. S.) 333, 379, 18 L.Ed. 366, declared: "The attorney and counsellor being, by the solemn judicial act of the...