Fletcher v. Laws, 5659.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 5659.,5659.
• Citation: 62 App. DC 40,64 F.2d 163
• Parties: FLETCHER v. LAWS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

62 App. DC 40, 64 F.2d 163 (1933)

FLETCHER v. LAWS et al.

No. 5659.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Argued February 6, 1933.

Decided March 6, 1933.

Motion for Reargument Denied March 30, 1933.

Edmond C. Fletcher, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Bolitha J. Laws and Lucien H. Vandoren, both of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

An appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, holding a general term, disbarring the appellant from practicing as an attorney or counselor before the bar of the court.

On May 1, 1931, the committee on grievances of the lower court charged appellant, an attorney of that court, with acts alleged to constitute malpractice, unethical and improper conduct, rendering appellant unfit to be a member of the bar, and unworthy of the confidence of the court, his clients, and of the public.

On November 11, 1931, the lower court in general term, having heard the testimony, made a finding of facts in substance as follows:

That about November 10, 1925, the city of Cape May, a municipal corporation of New Jersey, employed appellant as an attorney at law to prosecute a claim against the United States in the Court of Claims upon a contingent fee. Appellant thereupon filed a suit in accordance with this employment. On December 5, 1927, the Court of Claims made special findings of facts and conclusions of law in the case, and delivered its opinion, adjudging that the city of Cape May recover from the United States the sum of $31,041.07, together with interest as prescribed.

Prior to August 6, 1929, appellant had borrowed from one Van Senden a sum in excess of $2,000, and later requested a further loan of $1,000 from him. Van Senden agreed to make the additional loan on condition that appellant assign to him a sufficient portion of his interest in the judgment before mentioned to repay the $2,000 of the existing loan and the proposed additional loan of $1,000. Appellant thereupon executed a written instrument which recited that he was entitled to compensation for services in the foregoing case in approximately the sum of $5,120, and that he assigned and transferred to Van Senden an interest equal to $3,030 in his equitable interest in the aforesaid judgment, the same to be paid out of the first moneys to which appellant might be entitled under his contract of employment. Upon the faith of this assignment Van Senden made a further loan of $1,000 to appellant. By letter dated August 6, 1929, Van Senden sent the original assignment to the city of Cape May, with the request that the city council accept such assignment and record the same, and that, when the judgment was paid, the city council should cause to be delivered to him a check for $3,030. Appellant in a footnote to this letter, joined in requesting that the city accept the assignment, and added "Mr. Van Senden has been of very great assistance to me in this litigation, having advanced necessary moneys with which to prosecute the same." The city of Cape May, however, did not at the time formally accept the assignment.

Appellant was dissatisfied with the amount of the judgment rendered by the Court of Claims, and contemplated applying to Congress for further compensation. The city of Cape May, however, desired to collect on the existing judgment. Finally, in April, 1931, appellant advised the city that it might safely accept the amount due on the existing judgment, and the city accepted the sum of $33,743.92 in settlement thereof. Van Senden died on October 4, 1929, and administrators were appointed upon his estate. Mr. Ballinger, a member of this bar, had been attorney for Van Senden and continued to act as attorney for the estate. He learned that the check had been...