In re Bruener, C. D. 1366.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1930
• Docket Number: C. D. 1366.
• Citation: 159 Wash. 504,294 P. 254
• Parties: In re BRUENER.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

294 P. 254

159 Wash. 504

In re BRUENER.

No. C. D. 1366.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

December 11, 1930

Proceedings for the disbarment of Theodore B. Bruener, an attorney at law.

Respondent permanently disbarred.

Attorney engaged in trial going on picnic with woman juror and remaining in her company for four hours on pallet esting sandwiches and drinking intoxicants merited permanent disbarment. TOLMAN, BEALS, and FULLERTON, JJ., dissenting.

John H Dunbar, of Olympia, and L. B. Donley, of Aberdeen, for State Board of Law Examiners.

M. F Gose, of Olympia, George H. Rummens, of Seattle, and Maurice A. Langhorne, of Tacoma, for respondent.

MILLARD J.

This is a disbarment proceeding. Respondent was charged with unethical conduct in that he spent an entire afternoon in the company of a woman juror for the purpose of influencing the action of that juror in a cause in favor of respondent's client. The facts as found by the state board of law examiners are as follows:

For the purpose of condemning the water plant owned by the defendant and to have a valuation fixed thereon so that the plaintiff city might acquire it, an action was instituted by the city of Hoquiam against the Oregon-Washington Water Service Corporation. Trial of the cause to the court and a jury was commenced June 10, 1929, in the Grays Harbor county superior court at Montesano. The defendant water corporation was represented by a number of attorneys, of which respondent was one. One of the jurors was a Mrs Katherine Law, who resided with her husband a short distance from the courthouse. The jurors were allowed to separate during the trial. On July 11th, the attorneys for the plaintiff city employed two professional investigators or detectives to investigate a course of conduct which had been observed going on between Mrs. Law and an engineer employed by the defendant. The investigators observed the jurors at recess and after court hours, particularly Mrs. Law, and on one occasion that juror on her way to the courthouse stopped and had a short conversation with a reputed bootlegger who accompanied that lady in his automobile to the courthouse. About July 18th or 19th she was in the company of this man who escorted her to a dance. During the period commencing with the trial and July 20th it was observed that Mrs. Law seemed to pay considerable attention to an engineer employed by the defendant company; and the two exchanged glances and smiles. On a few occasions the respondent was observed drinking at a fountain at the same time Mrs. Law was there and they exchanged a few words, but nothing out of the ordinary was observed, nor was anything observed passing between the respondent and Mrs. Law in the courtroom. On another occasion it was observed that the cars of respondent and Mrs. Law were parked side by side; that he left the courthouse just ahead of her, and as they arrived at the cars the respondent stopped and said something to her. This was several days prior to July 20th. As July 20th fell on Saturday the court adjourned at noon. Some time during the forenoon of that day Mrs. Law telephoned to the operator of a confectionery and lunch counter to prepare a lunch for two people, the lunch consisting of chicken sandwiches and two pieces of apple pie. Shortly after court adjourned Mrs. Law drove in her car to the lunch counter, obtained the lunch, and then drove to her home. She usually drove her car to the front of her residence, but on this occasion the car was driven to the garage in the rear of the residence. The inference is irresistible that she got from her home or garage several bottles of homemade beer which she put in the rear of her car and drove away in the direction of the Satsop river. The respondent departed from the courthouse on or about 11:15 a. m. that day and did not return as the court adjourned, as stated above, at 12 noon. When court adjourned Mrs. Law departed with another lady from the courthouse. She parted from the lady, returned to the courthouse where she remained for a few minutes, and then went to her car. The investigators followed Mrs. Law. After driving several miles she stopped her car beside and at a curve in the road. About five or ten minutes later the respondent driving alone in his car arrived at the place where Mrs. Law and parked, slowed down as though he intended to stop, and thereupon Mrs. Law started her car and followed the respondent. At some distance beyond this point the road forks. One branches to the left, crossing the Satsop river, and is the better road; the other continues up the river on the right-hand side and leads to Shelton. The right-hand road runs along the hillside and on the other side is low brushy land. After leaving the point where the road forks there is no convenient place to stop for camping until one arrives at the Blanton ranch, several miles farther up the road. S.W. Blanton owns some pasture land along the Satsop river which is covered with a growth of underbrush, though not very thick, and a place where picnics are frequently held. There is a gate in the fence and a road running from the highway through this gateway for a short distance. Arriving at this gate the respondent stopped his car, and Mrs. Law who was a short distance to the rear of him did likewise. The respondent opened the gate and drove his car into the pasture a distance of three or four hundred feet and parked the same near the river bank. Mrs. Law followed with her car and parked it beside respondent's. The parties were observed taking articles out of their respective cars consisting of the lunch package and some blankets. The blankets were spread upon the ground a short distance from the cars, and while the cars were readily observable from the highway, the place where the blankets were spread was not observable because of the thick growth of underbrush in that vicinity. The respondent and the lady arrived at the picnic ground about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. The investigators telephoned to one of the attorneys for the plaintiff city, and two of them and another party or two arrived some time later. Subsequently the other attorney for the plaintiff arrived pursuant to a telephone call. On several occosions during the afternoon witnesses, consisting of the investigators, attorneys, and others, worked their way through the pasture to within fifty to one hundred feet of the place where the blankets were. From that point they viewed respondent and Mrs. Law. At long intervals they were not under observation. The parties had their lunch, were observed to drink from the bottles taken from the car of Mrs. Law, and on at least one occasion the respondent was observed drinking from a dark square bottle which he took from his car and which contained whisky. Some of these bottles were offered and received in evidence, the bottles having been picked up and taken from the scene. During the course of the afternoon the respondent and Mrs. Law were observed first about the cars getting out the luncheon and blankets and thereafter lying between the blankets talking and laughing; and on one occasion walking hand in hand from the river. Shortly after arriving at the picnic ground Mrs. Law donned a bathing suit which she wore the remainder of the afternoon. It is not clear whether or not Mrs. Law actually went in bathing, though a few hundred feet below the place where the blankets were there is a pool suitable for swimming. About 6:30 o'clock in the afternoon, when one of the attorneys for plaintiff city arrived, several parties, including one with a camera, made further observation of the respondent and Mrs. Law; and they were found, as before stated, engaged in low conversation and laughing. Thereupon the observers went to the place where the respondent and Mrs. Law were. The respondent arose from the blankets, he being fully dressed as he had been all of the afternoon, so far as observed, but was in his shirt sleeves, the day being warm. Mrs. Law became hysterical and covered up fully with the blankets. Upon insistence that her identity be disclosed, the upper blanket was partially removed which sufficiently revealed her face and the fact that she still had on the bathing suit. Both the respondent and Mrs. Law asserted that nothing had been said about the case that afternoon. When the respondent was asked for an explanation he stated they were having a little party. All parties then returned to Montesano. The next day a conference was held in the office of the respondent between the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant, and it was finally agreed that the jury be discharged, the case proceed to trial before the court without a jury, and that the judge be called upon to render a decision fixing the value of defendant's property. This agreement was consummated. A few days thereafter Mrs. Law disappeared, and her whereabouts were unknown at the time of the hearing. The meeting between the respondent and Mrs. Law at the Blanton picnic ground was prearranged between them.

'As to whether or not the respondent made this engagement for the purpose of influencing Mrs. Law as a juror is a question upon which minds may differ. The members of the board are inclined to the view that the purpose of this meeting was to have illicit relations and satisfy their mutual desires rather than a preconceived plan on the part of the respondent to use this method of bribing...