In re Bailey
| Decision Date | 01 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 3620. |
| Citation | 146 P. 1101,50 Mont. 365 |
| Parties | IN RE BAILEY. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Contempt proceedings against Wendell Bailey for practicing law without a license. Judgment of guilty.
D. M Kelly, Atty. Gen., J. H. Alvord, Asst. Atty. Gen., and F. P Leiper, of Glendive, opposed.
On January 19, 1915, the Attorney General of this state filed in this court an accusation charging one Wendell Bailey, of Sidney, Richland county, Mont., with a contempt of this court, in that said Bailey "is holding himself out as an attorney at law, by advertisement and otherwise, and is practicing the profession of an attorney and counselor at law in courts of record in the said town and county, without having first been admitted so to do by this court." Upon this accusation, which was supported in detail by the affidavit of F. J. Matoushek, Herbert H. Hoar, and Carl L Brattin, all regularly licensed attorneys residing at Sidney, a citation was issued requiring the respondent to appear and show cause why he should not be punished. He appeared and entered his plea of not guilty and filed a detailed answer consisting of denials, admissions, and matters in avoidance. A hearing was duly had before this court, testimony being taken both in support of and against said accusation, and thereafter the matter was duly submitted for judgment and decision.
No good purpose would be served by reciting the evidence at length. Suffice it to say, the following facts were made to appear without substantial contradiction: The respondent has never been admitted to practice law in this state; but on February 16, 1914, he opened a law office at Sidney, from which time and until June 1, 1914, he maintained and conducted said office in his individual name, displayed at the entrance thereof a sign reading, "Wendell Bailey, Attorney at Law," caused a card to be published in the telephone directory commonly used at Sidney, and in four newspapers of general circulation in Richland county, to the effect that he was an "attorney and counselor at law," procured and used stationery proclaiming him to be an "attorney and counselor at law," received, advised, and acted for clients in legal matters pending in court and otherwise, represented them in proceedings cognizable only by the courts of record of this state, and charged and accepted compensation for such services; that on or about June 1, 1914, he associated himself in partnership with one R. O. Lunke, a licensed attorney of this court, said partnership being formed for the general practice of law, including practice in the courts of record of this state, particularly the district courts of Richland and Dawson counties; that said partnership continued in existence up to the time of the hearing herein, proclaimed itself by signs, cards, stationery, and indorsements upon pleadings as a firm of attorneys at law, prepared, signed, and filed pleadings as such in the district court of Richland county, received, advised, and acted for clients in legal matters pending in court and otherwise, appeared for clients in proceedings before said court, and charged and accepted compensation for services in that behalf; that the respondent actively participated in the business and operations of said firm, and prior to October 28, 1914, appeared in person before the district court of Richland county as a member of said firm, claiming to represent and representing parties to actions or proceedings before said court; that after October 28, 1914, and up to the time of the hearing herein, he prepared, signed, and filed pleadings in said court for and on behalf of said firm and as a member thereof, formulated briefs, advised clients touching legal matters, consulted with his associate concerning the business intrusted by clients to said firm, and claimed a share in the revenues derived from its professional activities.
It is not contested that the foregoing acts, if they constitute contempt at all, are a contempt of this court. Indeed, this could scarcely be questioned, in view of the provisions of title 5, pt. 1, Code Civil Procedure, whereby the authority to admit attorneys to the practice is vested solely in this court. The contention is that these acts do not constitute contempt at all under any statutory provision of this state.
The Revised Codes (section 6388) provide:
"If any person practice law in any court, except a justice's court or a police court, without having a license as attorney and counselor, he is guilty of a contempt of court."
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial