Bump v. District Court of Polk County
| Decision Date | 27 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | 45639. |
| Citation | 5 N.W.2d 914,232 Iowa 623 |
| Parties | BUMP et al. v. DISTRICT COURT OF POLK COUNTY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
H L. Bump, of Des Moines, for appellants.
Edward L. O'Connor, of Iowa City, and Comfort, Comfort & Irish, of Des Moines, for respondent.
The plaintiffs in this proceeding are members of the Polk County Bar Association and constitute the "Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law", and as such committee and as members of the bar, for themselves and other attorneys brought this action in the District Court of Polk County asking for an injunction and citation for contempt against the defendant, J. C. Rockwell, operating under the trade name of the Tax Payers Research Bureau. The petition alleges that Rockwell, who was not a lawyer, was engaged in soliciting from various persons, firms and corporations their claims for refund on taxes, that this solicitation was made in various ways, by telephone calls, by written letters and personally. The petition also alleged that the defendant had also solicited claims for money deposited by the receivers of closed banks where the receiver was unable to locate the person entitled thereto. That in so proceeding, defendant was practicing law without a license and was in contempt of court. The action, on plaintiffs' motion, was transferred to law, and thereafter, on motion of defendant, respondent herein, the court struck out that part of the petition and prayer asking for injunction. A second motion to strike and a demurrer to the petition were then filed and afterwards overruled. The written explanation of defendant followed, as authorized by Section 12546, Code of 1939.
As shown by the evidence in the trial court, through the means set out above, defendant procured assignments of many claims in the bank receiverships, for which he paid 50 cents on the dollar, and also about 1,300 claims for tax refunds, some of which he filed with the board of supervisors, and had petitions prepared for others. He also employed salesmen to solicit for the tax refund claims, which were prepared for him by a lawyer. No legal action or suit had yet been brought on the tax refunds.
The manner in which defendant proceeded in the collection of these tax claims was as follows: he procured from the persons to whom refunds were due under a decision of this court, an agreement and assignment, of which the following is a copy in blank:
of......County, Iowa, for the years...... covering the following described property, situated in said County:
The names of the taxpayers were obtained from the tax rolls. No money was paid to the taxpayers at the time the assignments were procured.
The matter of money due from closed banks was handled in another way. In the clerk's office was a list of the owners of these unclaimed funds. After the names were copied from such list, defendant sent to them a letter, of which the following is a sample:
The sight draft mentioned in the letter is in the following form:
With the application for injunction eliminated, the hearing in contempt proceedings began on December 26, 1940. At the trial some oral testimony was taken, including the testimony of Rockwell himself, but the evidence showed the facts as heretofore indicated; and there was very little dispute in the evidence as to the manner in which the operations were conducted. On January 4, 1941, the court entered judgment, finding that it had jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter and authority to punish for contempt, and that the testimony did not amount to the unauthorized practice of law, and denying plaintiffs' petition for contempt. Plaintiffs thereupon applied to this court for writ of certiorari, which was granted and writ issued, and the cause is now before us on such petition and record thereon. Question was made as to the form of proceedings in an action of this kind. We think that the proper proceeding against a person illegally and without authority practicing law is by contempt, and that it may also be by injunction, and we are satisfied that not only under the provisions of the Code of 1939, Section 12542, has the court the power to punish for contempt but that it may also do so under the inherent power of the court.
I. Section 12542 of the Code, in addition to the provisions mentioned in Section 12541, provides, * * *" It has been held by the courts of practically every state where such question has arisen that unauthorized practice of law may be punished as contempt. See State ex rel. Wright v. Barlow, 131 Neb. 294, 268 N.W. 95; Id., 132 Neb. 166, 271 N.W. 282; State ex rel. Johnson v. Childe, 139 Neb. 91, 295 N.W. 381; State ex rel. Wright v. Hinckle, 137 Neb. 735, 291 N.W. 68; State ex rel. Hunter v. Daugherty, 136 Neb. 490, 286 N.W. 783; Danford v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.App. 303, 193 P. 272; People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Erbaugh, 42 Colo. 480, 94 P. 349; People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Ellis, 44 Colo. 176, 96 P. 783; People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Taylor, 56 Colo. 441, 138 P. 762; Anderson v. Coolin, 27 Idaho 334, 149 P. 286; In re Eastern Idaho Loan & Trust Co., 49 Idaho 280, 288 P. 157, 73 A.L.R. 1323; In re Brainard, 55 Idaho 153, 39 P. 2d 769; In re Bailey, 50 Mont. 365, 146 P. 1101, Ann.Cas.1917B, 1198; In re White, 54 Mont. 476, 171 P. 759; New Jersey Photo Eng. Co. v. Carl Schonert & Sons, Inc., 1923, 95 N.J.Eq. 12, 122 A. 307; Bowles v. United States, 4 Cir., 1931, 50 F.2d 848; People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass'n v. People's Stock Yards State Bank, 344 Ill. 462, 176 N.E. 901; People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Motorists' Ass'n of Illinois, 1933, 354 Ill. 595, 188 N.E. 827; Rhode Island Bar Ass'n v. Automobile Service Ass'n, 55 R.I. 122, 179 A. 139, 100 A.L.R. 226.
That there is also the remedy of injunction, see Johnson v. Purcell, 225 Iowa 1265, 282 N.W. 741; People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass'n v. People's Stock Yards State Bank, supra; State ex rel. Junior Bar Ass'n of Milwaukee v. Rice, 236 Wis. 38, 294 N.W. 550; Grand Rapids Bar Ass'n v. Denkema, 290 Mich. 56, 287 N.W. 377; Fitchette v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 910, 94 A.L.R. 356, and cases cited in note thereto.
Under the Constitution of Iowa, vesting judicial power exclusively in the courts, Article V, Section 1, and Section 12542 of the Code, the courts of this state are vested with complete authority to punish by contempt proceedings unlawful practice. See, also, Johnson v. Purcell, supra, and cases cited therein.
It is stated in Brand's "Unauthorized Practice of the Law" (1937) at page 12...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bump v. Dist. Court of Polk Cnty.
...232 Iowa 6235 N.W.2d 914BUMP et al.v.DISTRICT COURT OF POLK COUNTY.No. 45639.Supreme Court of Iowa.Oct. 27, Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Loy Ladd, Judge. Petition for writ of certiorari to review the action of the District Court in proceeding for contempt, wherein the holding wa......