In re Carr
| Decision Date | 13 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 26017.,26017. |
| Citation | 377 Ill. 140,36 N.E.2d 243 |
| Parties | In re CARR. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In the matter of John E. Carr, attorney, against whom the grievance committee of the Illinois State Bar Association filed a report concerning professional conduct and recommending his disbarment
Respondent disbarred.
J. E. Carr, of West Frankfort, pro se.
Donald Gray, of Kankakee, amicus curiae.
The grievance committee of the Illinois State Bar Association, acting under authority of rule No. 59 of this court, Ill.Rev.Stat.1939, c. 110, § 259.59, has filed a report concerning the professional conduct of the respondent, John E. Carr, and recommends his disbarment. He has filed exceptions to that report. It appears from the report that in response to numerous complaints an investigation was made of the professional conduct of the respondent, resulting in a complaint filed with the grievance committee of the Illinois State Bar Association. In this complaint respondent was charged with fourteen separate instances of unprofessional conduct. He answered the complaint and attended the hearing before the commissioners. Three specifications were dismissed by amicus curiae and two were found by the commissioners not to have been proved. As to the remaining nine the commissioners find: (1) That respondent knowingly filed in the city court of Johnson City, Williamson county, a forged and fraudulent entry of appearance in the divorce case of Howard v. Howard, and knowingly filed and prosecuted the suit in that court when he knew that neither of the parties to the suit resided in Johnson City or in Williamson county; (2) that on June 26, 1937, respondent, on the representation that he had procured for one Ruby Iubelt, in the circuit court of Williamson county, a divorce decree, collected a fee of $40 from her, when, in fact, he had never filed such suit, and that he knowingly and wilfully furnished her with a fraudulent copy of decree for divorce when no such decree existed; (3) that respondent knowingly filed in the city court of West Frankfort, Illinois, a false entry of appearance of the defendant in the divorce case of Fornelli v. Fornelli, in which case respondent was attorney for the plaintiff. The decree which he later secured was set aside because of the forged entry of appearance; (4) that respondent, on or about February 2, 1931, entered a plea of guilty in the case of United States v. Zielinski and John E. Carr, in the United States District Court of the Eastern Division of Illinois. Respondent was in that case indicted on a charge of violating the National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., and conspiring to conceal the assets of the bankrupt, and was punished on such plea; (5) that respondent filed and prosecuted in the city court of Johnson City a divorce proceeding in the case of Hazel v. Hazel, knowing that neither party was a resident of Johnson City, and that he knowingly filed a forged and fraudulent entry of appearance of the defendant in that suit. The sixth count is a similar charge of filing a forged entry of appearance in the city court of Johnson City in the case of Trepanier v. Trepanier; (7) that respondent, as attorney for the plaintiff, prosecuted the divorce case of Oliver v. Oliver, in the city court of Marion, in Williamson county, at a time when he knew that neither party was a resident of the city of Marion but resided in West Frankfort, in Franklin county, and that in that proceeding respondent knowingly filed an entry of appearance which purported to have been executed by the defendant Arnold Oliver at a time when he knew defendant was insane and an inmate of a State hospital. The eighth specification is that respondent, as attorney for the defendant in a separate maintenance suit of Mary Rose v. Ernest Rose, wherein a decree had been entered in favor of the plaintiff, advised defendant to go to Arkansas and there secure a divorce to evade the maintenance payments to his wife, knowing that such divorce would be fraudulent, and that respondent assisted Rose in procuring a lawyer in Arkansas who would obtain the fraudulent decree. The ninth specification and finding is that the respondent, as attorney for one Flossie Moore, filed for her a bill for divorce against her husband Earl, in the circuit court of Franklin county, in which county the plaintiff resided. The cause went to a hearing but a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heirich, In re
... ... In answer to such claim, at page 506, of 371 Ill. at page 721 of 21 N.E.2d, this court stated: 'This contention cannot be sustained.' Also see In re Carr, 377 Ill. 140, 36 N.E.2d 243 and In re Anderson, 370 Ill. 515, 19 N.E.2d 330 ... [10 Ill.2d 362] Respondent filed an answer amounting to a general denial of the charges, and affirmatively alleging that seven major railroads organized and financed an organization known as the ... ...
-
Matter of Colson
... ... See, e. g., In re West, 155 W.Va. 648, 186 S.E.2d 776, 777 (1972); Calzada v. Sinclair, 6 Cal.App.3d 903, 86 Cal.Rptr. 387 (1970); In re Carr, 377 III. 140, 36 N.E.2d 243 (1941); State ex rel. Conklin v. Buckingham, 59 Nev. 36, 84 P.2d 49 (1938); In re Bartos, 13 F.2d 138 (D.Neb. 1926); In re Henry, 15 Idaho 755, 99 P. 1054 (1909) ... Respondent Colson spent considerable time arguing before the hearing committee ... ...
-
Eaton, In re
... ... It is the established rule in this State that conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is conclusive evidence of an attorney's guilt and ground for disbarment. In re Needham, 364 Ill. 65, 4 N.E.2d 19; In re Carr, 377 Ill. 140, 36 N.E.2d 243. We have further said that moral turpitude is involved where an attorney is convicted of a crime in which fraud is an element. In re Needham, 364 Ill. 65, 4 N.E.2d 19; In re Teitelbaum, 13 Ill.2d 586, 150 N.E.2d 873 ... The crime here, as in the ... ...
-
Browning, In re, 36419
...for a criminal offense involving moral turpitude is given a conclusive effect (In re Eaton, 14 Ill.2d 338, 152 N.E.2d 850; In re Carr, 377 Ill. 140, 36 N.E.2d 243; In re Needham, 364 Ill. 65, 4 N.E.2d 19; People Page 18 ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Meyerovitz, 278 Ill. 356, 116 N.E. 189; Pe......