Harrison, In re, 28832

• Citation: 109 N.E.2d 722,231 Ind. 665
• Decision Date: 15 January 1953
• Docket Number: No. 28832,28832
• Parties: In re HARRISON.
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 722

109 N.E.2d 722

231 Ind. 665

In re HARRISON.

No. 28832.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 15, 1953.

C. Ballard Harrison, pro se.

E. Miles Norton, Crown Point, for respondent.

Charles C. Baker, Indianapolis, Chester E. Bielby, Lawrenceburg, Wilbur F. Dassel, Evansville, Robert H. Moore, Gary, James R. Newkirk, Fort Wayne, Members of Disciplinary Commission.

BOBBITT, Judge.

This proceeding was commenced on September 12, 1951, by the filing of an information in revocation of admission to practice law as an attorney in this state, by the Disciplinary Commission appointed by this court under Rule 3-21 of the Supreme Court of Indiana, 1949 Revision. An amended information was filed on July 10, 1952, to which defendant filed answer denying each and every material allegation of each and every rhetorical paragraph of said amended information.

Among the charges contained in the amended information is the following: 'That said attorney C. Ballard Harrison has been convicted of a felony in the Criminal Court of Lake County, which said cause was appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana and said conviction has been sustained by the Supreme Court.' The records of this court, of which we take judicial notice, ¹ conclusively sustain this charge. Our records further disclose that a petition for rehearing in Harrison v. State, 1952, Ind.Sup., 106 N.E.2d 912, in which defendant was convicted of perjury and sentenced by the Lake Criminal Court to the Indiana State Prison for not less than one (1) nor more than ten (10) years, was denied on October 6, 1952.

The practice of law is a privilege rather than a natural or vested right. Hulbert v. Mybeck, 1942, 220 Ind. 530, 535, 44 N.E.2d 830.

Acts 1937, ch. 88, § 2, p. 452, § 4-3614, Burns' 1946 Replacement, provides in relevant part as follows:

'Any circuit or superior court of the county in which an attorney resides shall revoke the admission of such attorney to practice law in the state of Indiana in a proceeding brought in conformity with the provisions of the statutes of Indiana, whenever:

'First. He has been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction wherein the crime for which he was convicted is designated as a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, in either of which cases, the record of conviction is conclusive evidence; or

'Second. He has committed a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; or

'Third. He has wilfully violated any of the duties of an attorney, as prescribed by statute; or

'Fourth. He has wilfully violated his oath as an attorney.'

This act, ch. 88, Acts 1937, supra, is not exclusive and has been construed 'as providing a cumulative procedure for disbarment by circuit and superior courts which in no way circumscribes the jurisdiction conferred upon this court' by ch. 64, Acts 1931. Beamer, Attorney General v. Waddell, 1943, 221 Ind. 232, 240, 45 N.E.2d 1020, 1023.

The authority conferred upon this court by said ch. 64, supra, to admit attorneys to practice law in all courts of the state carries with it the power to suspend or disbar them for such causes and under such reasonable conditions as this court may, in its judicial discretion, determine to be justifiable under the circumstances. Beamer, Attorney General v. Waddell, supra.

Section 4-3614, supra, defines certain specific causes for disbarment and when any of the provisions of this section are violated by an attorney whose right to practice law in this state is subject to the jurisdiction of this court, he is subject to discipline by this court for the causes specified in said section.

We construe the previsions of said § 4-3614, supra, as being in aid of the power of this court to prescribe rules and regulations for the admission of attorneys to practice law in...