Chantry, In re, C
| Decision Date | 28 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. C,C |
| Citation | 407 P.2d 160,67 Wn.2d 190 |
| Parties | In re Disciplinary Proceedings Arthur S. W. CHANTRY, An Attorney at Law. D. 3697. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Arthur S. W. Chantry, pro se.
T. M. Royce, Bar Counsel, Wash. State Bar Assn., Seattle.
The Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association, having reviewed the evidence and the findings of fact and conclusions of its hearing panel, recommends to this court that Arthur S. W. Chantry be disbarred from the practice of law in this jurisdiction for violation of Canons of Professional Ethics 11 and 29, and Rule for Discipline of Attorneys 1, A (as adopted November 2, 1960), RCW Vol. O.
February 26, 1951, Arthur S. W. Chantry was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Washington. September 19, 1964, respondent acknowledged in writing due service of the Association's formal complaint against him. Subsequently, he acknowledged in writing receipt of Notice of Hearing Panel Members, Notice of Hearing, and of a subpoena duces tecum. Although the record discloses that the Association gave respondent notice of every procedural step, he filed no pleading of any kind and made no appearance, personally or by counsel at any stage of this proceeding.
The ultimate facts disclosed by the evidence are these:
While respondent was acting as the attorney for an estate, the administratrix endorsed and delivered to him a check for $593.68 payable to her as beneficiary of an insurance policy on the life of decedent. Respondent was to pay funeral expenses and other claims against the estate. He did not do so. He has neglected and refused to return the money to the administratrix and has appropriated it to his own use.
In the same estate, respondent secured an order of court authorizing him, not the administratrix, to sell an automobile for not less than $650. He sold the car; retained the money; and has appropriated it to his own use.
In September, 1962, respondent was employed by the heirs of a decedent to handle and close the estate, including payment or securing waivers of inheritance taxes from the states of Washington and California. Wills and a community property agreement were delivered to him. Respondent did a minimum of work on the estate. His procrastination, neglect, and apparent abandonment made it necessary for the heirs to employ other counsel who did not succeed in securing the documents delivered to respondent until May, 1964.
For some time, respondent maintained a law office with other lawyers in the Dexter Horton Building in Seattle. He commenced absenting himself from the office. Finally, it was learned that he had an office in the National Guard Armory. Later he secured a post office box at the Bitter Lake Station. Without detailing the facts, the record supports the finding that he has not communicated with his former associates, could not be reached by telephone, did not respond to messages mailed him, and neglected the affairs and business which he had undertaken as an attorney at law on behalf of clients.
Canon of Professional Ethics 11 provides in part:
Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly, and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.
Canon of Professional Ethics 29 provides in part:
He (the lawyer) should strive at all times to uphold the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Wightman
...of deportment which must be met. These rules have the dignity and status of any rule adopted by the Supreme Court. In re Chantry, 67 Wash.2d 190, 407 P.2d 160 (1965). They are the standards of ethics for all members of the bar of this state. RCW Regarding the division of fees among lawyers,......
-
Rosellini, Matter of
...361 P.2d 642 (1961); In re McDole, 63 Wash.2d 962, 390 P.2d 9 (1964); In re Marsh, 65 Wash.2d 390, 397 P.2d 828 (1964); In re Chantry, 67 Wash.2d 190, 407 P.2d 160 (1965); In re Moody, 69 Wash.2d 808, 420 P.2d 374 (1966); In re Warnock, 70 Wash.2d 457, 423 P.2d 929 (1967); In re Randall, 72......
-
Soderquist, In re, C
...We have held repeatedly that disbarment is a proper disposition where a violation of Canon 11 has been established. In re Chantry, 67 Wash.2d 190, 407 P.2d 160 (1965); In re Ward, 54 Wash.2d 593, 343 P.2d 872 (1959). Also see In re Pennington, 73 Wash.2d 601, 440 P.2d 175 (1968) at note In ......
-
Johnson, In re, C
...to the care of an attorney begets disbarment.' In re Hutchins, 67 Wash.2d 144, 146, 406 P.2d 777, 778 (1965); In re Chantry, 67 Wash.2d 190, 193, 407 P.2d 160 (1965); In re Carroll,54 Wash.2d 633, 343 P.2d 1023 It is ordered that Jerald R. Johnson be, and he hereby is, disbarred from the pr......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 157 Wn. App. 267, 237 P.3d 309 (2010), review granted, 171 Wn.2d 1005 (2011): 6–77 n.471 Chantry, In re, 67 Wn.2d 190, 407 P.2d 160 (1965): 16–53 Chantry, In re, 84 Wn.2d 153, 524 P.2d 909 (1974): 16–64 Chi-Dooh Li, In re, 79 Wn.2d 561, 488 P.2d 259 (1971): 2–3......