In re Disbarment of Farris

• Decision Date: 05 June 1937
• Docket Number: No. 34670.,34670.
• Citation: 105 S.W.2d 921
• Parties: IN RE DISBARMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST RUSSELL D. FARRIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

105 S.W.2d 921

IN RE DISBARMENT PROCEEDING AGAINST RUSSELL D. FARRIS.

No. 34670.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

Court en Banc, June 5, 1937.

LICENSE OF RESPONDENT TO PRACTICE LAW IN THIS STATE SUSPENDED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR.

Edgar Shook and Paul Barnett for informants.

(1) It constitutes malpractice, fraud, deceit, and a misdemeanor in his professional capacity for an attorney to offer to represent a client accused of a crime for a stipulated fee, or to represent him "the sure way" for a larger fee, and to represent that a part of the money must be paid to officers connected with the prosecution. Even though the attorney does not in fact perform the additional illegitimate service, yet it is professional misconduct to lead his client to believe he will do so and thus extort an illegitimate fee. Thus it is ground for disbarment if an attorney defrauds a client by means of false and misleading statements, or by false representations made with a view to obtain employment. 6 C.J. 590; In re Boone, 83 Fed. 944; State ex rel. Dill v. Martin, 45 Wash. 76, 87 Pac. 1054. (2) If the attorney for a defendant in a criminal case offers the prosecuting attorney money to dismiss the case, and the circumstances show that it was not the intent that the money be used for the payment of costs or other lawful purposes, but that it was intended that the prosecuting attorney should receive the money, or part of it, for himself, this constitutes a crime and a misdemeanor in his professional capacity. Secs. 3929, 3934, R.S. 1929. (3) To offer money to an officer to improperly influence him to do things in his official capacity constitutes grounds for disbarment, without regard to whether such conduct constitutes the crime of attempted bribery within the meaning of the criminal statute. Thus, it is grounds for disbarment that an attorney attempted to bribe a policeman to furnish advance information contained in official and confidential accident reports, and to falsify such reports in order to magnify the extent of the personal injuries of his client. In re H-S-, 69 S.W. (2d) 325. (4) In determining whether or not the respondent, in offering money to the prosecuting attorney of Carroll County to dismiss a criminal prosecution, intended to bribe the officer, it is competent evidence of his criminal intent that he made a like offer to the justice of the peace before whom the original prosecution was pending, but who had no legal right to dismiss the proceeding. State v. Schnettler, 181 Mo. 189. (5) It constitutes malpractice, fraud, deceit, and a misdemeanor in his professional capacity for an attorney to state that the sheriff has demanded money for the release of a prisoner in his custody and thereby procure the payment of the sum of money so specified, whether the amount so exacted or any part thereof is actually paid to the sheriff or not. 6 C.J. 590; In re Boone, 83 Fed. 944; State ex rel. Dill v. Martin, 45 Wash. 76, 87 Pac. 1054. (6) It constitutes malpractice, fraud and a misdemeanor in his professional capacity for an attorney to knowingly assist his client in executing a fraudulent conveyance, especially when the attorney is himself a party to the transaction and actually takes the fraudulent conveyance in his own name. Sec. 4098, R.S. 1929.

R.H. Musser, Pross T. Cross and Gerald Cross for Russell D. Farris.

Witness after witness was produced before the commissioner to testify to the high esteem in which Russell Farris was held by the citizens of his community, and the high value they placed upon his manhood and integrity. We respectfully insist that the prosecution has wholly failed to substantiate, by the testimony of any credible witness, its charges, or any of them, against the defendant, Russell D. Farris, and that he should be herewith discharged.

GANTT, J.

Original action in disbarment by the Bar Committee of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit against respondent Russell D. Farris, an attorney of Ray County and a member of the bar of this court.

The petition is in five counts charging said Farris with unprofessional conduct and praying for the revocation of his license to practice law in this State. The committee dismissed as to the third count. The answer was a general denial. In due course the evidence was heard by our commissioner, Hon. John L. Plowman of the Marion County Bar. He reported as follows:

"At the outset there is a matter of evidence on behalf of the Respondent relating to all the charges, viz.: There was evidence offered in the cause that Russel D. Farris had previously borne a good reputation in the community where he was born, resided and practiced, for truth and good citizenship; and I find as a fact, from all the evidence, the previous character of Respondent for truth and good citizenship, was good. As a matter of law, I conclude that the previous good character of Respondent is a fact to be considered in passing upon his guilt or innocence of the charges herein made; for one, whose character is good is less likely to commit the acts here charged than one whose character is not good; but, if all the evidence, including the evidence that was given touching the previous good character of Respondent showed him to have been guilty of the unprofessional conduct charged, then his previous good character cannot justify, excuse, palliate or mitigate the same.

"The First Specification charges that Respondent in fixing the amount of his fee of $1,000 for defending one, James Russell, on a felony charge, told him that amount was necessary for the reason that he (Farris) had to pay or divide the money between the Prosecuting Attorney, the Sheriff and the Judge of the Court; which statement was untrue.

"From all the evidence on this charge, I find that in September, 1934, James Russell, a farmer of about thirty-nine years of age, living near Richmond, Missouri, and engaged in feeding live stock, bought two loads of corn from four men. The corn was stolen from a car on the Wabash Railroad track. The four men were charged with the theft and James Russell was charged with the receiving of stolen corn; he had never been connected with any criminal matter before, and he consulted with his friends and relatives in Ray County as to what he should do. The Sheriff advised him to employ Russell D. Farris to defend him, and offered to go with him to effect the arrangement; however, James Russell and his brother-in-law, Robert Walker called at the office of Russell D. Farris in Richmond, Missouri, with a view of retaining him to defend the charge. In the first instance, Russell D. Farris sought to impress upon James Russell the gravity of the charge, and the matter of fee being brought up, wanted $1500.00. James Russell testified that the proposition made to him by Russell D. Farris was $1500.00 to get him out of his trouble and `put his feet back on the farm' without any trial or further notoriety, or $750.00 merely to defend him in Court; that paying $1500.00 was the `sure way' to get him out. The amount of this $1500.00 fee being objected to because James Russell could not raise that amount of money, and thought the fee too high, Farris finally said he would get Russell out the `sure way' for $1,000.00, or $750.00 to defend him in the trial of the case in court; that Farris said, in justification of that charge he was making, that the Sheriff, the Prosecuting Attorney and the Judge would have to be taken car of. Robert Walker, present at the time, understood the arrangement to be $1,000.00 to get James Russell out of the criminal charge the `sure way,' or $750.00 merely to defend him in Court.

"This is denied by Respondent, who states he advised James Russell that in order to properly defend him, it would be necessary to defend the four men charged with stealing the corn, and since they had no money or way of getting any, it would be necessary for Russell to pay for their defense.

"Two of the four men charged with stealing the corn testified as witnesses on behalf of Respondent, that James Russell endeavored to get them to testify against Respondent in these proceedings and they refused; that Russell D. Farris was still their attorney defending them on the charge of stealing the corn, which case was still pending in the Circuit Court of Ray County, never having been tried; one testified that James Russell offered him $600.00 to testify and the other stated that James Russell told him the sure way to get out of the trouble was to testify against Farris in this proceeding. The exact statements James Russell wanted these witnesses to make is not clear, except such statements would be unfavorable to Respondent in this proceeding. I find from their testimony that James Russell was active in his endeavor to secure witnesses against Respondent in this proceeding, but I do not find that he used any improper means in relation thereto; it is not found or established that he offered one of them $600.00 or any amount for testifying.

"I conclude from all the evidence relating to this charge, that James Russell and his brother-in-law, Robert Walker, understood from their conference with Respondent, that for the payment of the $1,000.00, which was in fact paid, Respondent would procure the dismissal or other favorable outcome of this charge without a trial and without further notoriety or trouble to James Russell, and that the procurement of such a result involved the payment of part of the fee to others, possibly the sheriff, prosecuting attorney and judge; that such understanding was brought about by what Respondent said in fixing the amount of his fee; that Respondent knew that James Russell and his brother-in-law so understood the matter and did or said nothing to correct such understanding on their part.

"There was no evidence that any part of said fee was paid by Respondent to any other person.

"As a matter of law relating to this charge, I conclude, that it is unlawful and unprofessional conduct for a lawyer to...