In Re Charles A. Thatcher

• Decision Date: 25 June 1909
• Docket Number: 11650
• Citation: 89 N.E. 39,80 Ohio St. 492
• Parties: In Re Charles A. Thatcher.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

89 N.E. 39

80 Ohio St. 492

In Re Charles A. Thatcher.

No. 11650

Supreme Court of Ohio

June 25, 1909

Disbarment proceedings - Supreme Court of Ohio has inherent jurisdiction in Section 563, Revised Statutes - Suspension or removal of an attorney - Right of attorney to criticise in respectful manner conduct of judges - But not to degrade or intimidate public officer - Article I, Section II, Ohio Constitution - Abuse of right of free speech - Nature of offense constituting contempt of court.

1. The Supreme Court of Ohio has inherent jurisdiction of proceedings to disbar an attorney, resulting as an incident of its organization as a court, as well as from its power to admit to the bar.

2. The provisions of Section 563, Revised Statutes, are not an attempted enlargement of the jurisdiction of the several courts therein named, in contravention to the constitution but are regulative provisions recognizing already existing powers of the courts.

3. An elector who is an attorney has the right to criticise the judgments and conduct of judges in a decent and respectful manner; but no man has a right to degrade and intimidate a public officer and bring his office into contempt by the publication of libelous matter at any time, and the fact that such officer is a candidate for re-election will not excuse such conduct. One who claims the protection of the constitution, Article I, Section 11, must also and at all times be held responsible for abuse of the privilege.

4. The real question in cases of this kind is whether under the facts admitted and proved the respondent appears to be a fit person to be longer allowed the privilege of an attorney whether he has shown himself, by lack of appreciation of ethical standards and by unworthy conduct, to be no longer worthy of being recognized as an officer of the courts.

5. In order to justify a court in disbarring an attorney, it is not necessary that his offense should constitute a contempt or a crime; or that he should be convicted of the crime or contempt before the disbarment.

6 While the power of disbarment should be exercised with great caution, yet where the respondent has been found guilty of unprofessional conduct involving moral turpitude and of misconduct affecting his character and standing as an attorney, and especially where he has manifested no signs of regret and retracted nothing, the courts will not hesitate through sympathy for the individual, to protect themselves from scandal and contempt and the public from prejudice, by striking such person from the roll of attorneys.

Upon representations made in open court, alleged to be on behalf of the bar of Lucas county, that one Charles A. Thatcher, a member of the bar of this state, residing in Lucas county and practicing in this court, had probably been guilty of unprofessional conduct involving moral turpitude, it was ordered that Clayton W. Everett, Emery D. Potter, John W Schaufelberger, Julian H. Tyler, Frank M. Sala and James S Martin, members of the bar of this state resident in Lucas county, prepare and file in this court written charges and specifications against the said Charles A. Thatcher, which charges and specifications were filed, as follows:

Charge No. 1. That the said Charles A. Thatcher now is and was at the times hereinafter set forth, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice as such in all the courts of this state, and practicing in this court: and that, as such attorney at law, he was, at the times and in the manner herein- after set forth and specified, guilty of unprofessional conduct involving moral turpitude.

Charge No. 2. That the said Charles A. Thatcher now is, and was at the times hereinafter set forth, an attorney at law duly admitted to practice as such in all the courts of this state, and practicing in this court; and that, as such attorney at law, he was at the times and in the manner hereinafter set forth and specified, guilty of misconduct in office.

Each of the foregoing charges contained eighteen separate specifications, which are substantially the same in each charge, and are as follows:

SPECIFICATION NO. 1.

That on or about the 24th day of October, 1908, said Charles A. Thatcher prepared, wrote, printed, published, distributed and circulated a certain printed pamphlet, a correct copy of which certain printed pamphlet is hereto attached, marked "Exhibit A," and made a part hereof as fully and completely as if rewritten herein.

That said Charles A. Thatcher caused said printed pamphlet to be freely circulated and distributed in said Lucas county and the counties of the state of Ohio adjoining, comprising the First Subdivision of the Fourth Judicial District of Ohio, and in and about and near to the court house in said Lucas county and to be placed in the hands of, and brought to the notice and attention of a large number of persons in said Lucas county and in said counties adjoining.

That at the time said Thatcher prepared, wrote, printed, published, distributed and circulated said pamphlet as aforesaid, one Lindley W. Morris, a citizen of Toledo, Lucas county, Ohio, was one of the judges of the court of common pleas of the said Fourth Common Pleas Judicial District of Ohio, and sitting as such judge in the court house in said Lucas county.

That said printed pamphlet was, as to each and every one of the matters and things therein contained, a false and malicious libel of and concerning said Morris as judge as aforesaid, and that all of said matters and things therein contained were known by said Thatcher to be false, malicious and untrue at the time he so prepared, wrote, printed, published, distributed and circulated the same.

That the said matters and things contained in said pamphlet tended to defame, disgrace and degrade the said Morris as judge, and the court over which he presided, in the minds of the people of said Lucas county, and of said counties adjoining, and of all the persons having litigation before him, as said judge; and tended to cause the people of said Lucas county and of said counties adjoining to believe that said Morris was, in his official capacity as such judge, corrupt and hostile to the interests of individuals engaged before him in litigation against corporations, and biased and prejudiced in favor of corporate interests engaged in litigation in his court; and tended to cause the people of said Lucas county and of said counties adjoining to be inflamed with prejudice against said Morris in his capacity as said judge, and to believe that trials as being conducted by said Morris as judge had their foundation in fraud and wrong, and that said Morris as judge decided cases being litigated in his court from a corrupt and im- proper motive and that fair and impartial trials were impossible in his court, and further tended to destroy the power and influence of said Morris as judge, and of the court over which he presided.

That the matters and things in said pamphlet contained imputed to said Morris in his official action as judge as aforesaid, a vicious and criminal disregard generally of the rights of litigants appearing before him as such judge and an utter lack of appreciation of the honor, the decency and the dignity of his official position as such judge.

That said Thatcher well knew at the time he prepared, wrote, printed, published, distributed and circulated said pamphlet, that the matters and things therein contained would tend to have the effect and produce the belief herein set forth; and in utter disregard and violation of his professional duties as such attorney at law, and of his oath of office and in disregard of the respect due to the authority of said Morris as judge as aforesaid, and of the said court over which he presided, said Thatcher prepared, wrote, printed, published, distributed and circulated said pamphlet with the design and intent that the matters therein contained should vilify, defame and degrade said Morris as judge and the said court over which he presided and destroy its power and influence; and with the further design and intent that the said matters and things therein contained should disgrace said Morris as judge, in the minds of the people of said Lucas county and of said counties adjoining and of all persons having litigation before him as such judge, and should cause the people of said Lucas county and of the said counties adjoining, to believe that said Morris was, in his official capacity as such judge, corrupt and hostile to the interests of the individual engaged before him in litigation against corporations, and biased and prejudiced in favor of corporate interests engaged in litigation in his court; and with the further design and intent that the said matters and things therein contained should cause the people of said Lucas county and of the counties adjoining to be inflamed with prejudice against said Morris in his capacity as said judge, and to believe that trials as being conducted by said Morris as judge had their foundation in fraud and wrong, and to believe that said Morris as judge decided causes being litigated in his court from a corrupt and improper motive, and that fair and impartial trials were impossible in his court; and with the further design and intent that the matters therein contained should impute to said Morris in his official action as judge as aforesaid, a vicious and criminal disregard generally of the rights of litigants appearing before him as such judge, and an utter lack of appreciation of the honor, the decency and the dignity of his official position as such judge.

SPECIFICATION NO. 2.

That on or about the 24th day of October, 1908, said Charles A Thatcher prepared, wrote, printed, published, distributed and circulated a certain printed pamphlet, a correct copy of...