Grievance Comm. of Bar of New Haven County v. Sinn

• Decision Date: 17 December 1941
• Citation: 128 Conn. 419,23 A.2d 516
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF BAR OF NEW HAVEN COUNTY v. SINN.

23 A.2d 516

128 Conn. 419

GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OF BAR OF NEW HAVEN COUNTY

v. SINN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 17, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1942.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; McEvoy, Judge.

Presentment by the Grievance Committee of the Bar of New Haven County praying that a rule issue to Ephraim E. Sinn to appear and show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, brought to the Superior Court where the rule was entered. A demurrer to the presentment and complaint was overruled, and the issues were tried to the court. From a judgment suspending the defendant from practice for a period of sixty days, defendant appeals. No error.

Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.

Ephraim Edward Sinn, of Milford, pro se.

Arthur T. Gorman, Asst. State's Atty, and Abraham S. Ullman, State's Atty, both of New Haven, for appellee.

ELLS, Judge.

This case came to the Superior Court upon a presentment by the Grievance Committee of the New Haven County Bar Association alleging that the defendant, a member of the bar of that county had been guilty of professional misconduct, and asking that he be directed to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. The presentment made the following charges: The defendant delivered to Mark McDermott, a deputy sheriff, a writ of attachment in an action wherein Howard Beauchamp was defendant, with directions to attach as the property of Beauchamp an automobile then in the latter's possession. The attachment was made, and thereafter the assignee of the vendor in a conditional bill of sale of the automobile to Beauchamp made demand upon the officer for possession of the car. The defendant, upon being informed of this demand, directed McDermott to refuse it, and he did so. The assignee then brought a replevin action, the defendant represented McDermott at the trial, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff therein to recover possession and for damages of $1 and costs of $82.75, which McDermott was compelled to pay. He demanded reimbursement, but the defendant refused to recognize any responsibility on his part, refused to pay, has demanded $150 for services in representing McDermott in the replevin action, and has refused to pay the sheriff for services rendered in making the original attachment, except to allow these sums as a set-off to the claim of $150 for services. A rule to show cause was issued by the court, the defendant appeared and demurred to the presentment, the demurrer was overruled, an answer filed, a hearing had, and judgment entered suspending the defendant from practice as a member of the bar of Connecticut for a period of sixty days. The defendant appealed.

In proceedings such as this a defendant is entitled to notice of the charges against him, to a fair hearing, and a fair determination, in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, of the questions at issue, and to an appeal to this court for the purpose of having it determined whether or not he has in some substantial manner been deprived of such rights. In re Durant, 80 Conn. 140, 147, 150, 67 A. 497, 10 Ann.Cas. 539; Grievance Committee v. Ennis, 84 Conn. 594, 602, 80 A. 767. The ultimate question is whether he is a fit person to be longer allowed the privileges of being an attorney. Fairfield County Bar v. Taylor, 60 Conn. 11, 16, 22 A. 441, 13 L. R.A. 767. His relations to the tribunal and the character and the purpose of the inquiry are such that unless it clearly appears that his rights have in some substantial way been denied him, the action of the court will not be set aside upon review. In re Durant, supra, 80 Conn, page 150, 67 A. 497, 10 Ann.Cas. 539.

Error is assigned in overruling the demurrer. The questions raised in its various grounds are all involved in this appeal. With all the facts before us it is unnecessary to rule on the effect of a decision upon a demurrer. Thomas' Appeal, 85 Conn. 50, 51, 81 A. 972.

The trial court found true the charges specifically alleged in the presentment, and no changes can be made in its finding. It was not alleged that the defendant specifically agreed to pay the costs of the replevin action. Under the circumstances alleged the attorney is justly regarded as having personally requested the services rendered, and as having personally directed the officer to take the property attached. He is therefore personally liable for the consequences of his acts, one of which is a legal inference from these facts of a promise to reimburse the officer for any loss sustained by having taken the property of the wrong person. Higgins v. Russo, 72 Conn. 238, 242, 43 A. 1050, 77 Am.St.Rep. 307. While in that case the attorney had in his hands money paid by his client to use, if necessary, in defending the validity of the contemplated seizure, the reasoning of the opinion validly supports a rule that as between attorney and officer the former is liable to the latter for the consequences of actions performed at his express command. The present case is stronger in that the attorney not only directed the...