In re Disbarment of Tracy
Decision Date | 27 March 1936 |
Docket Number | 29,482 |
Citation | 266 N.W. 88,197 Minn. 35 |
Parties | IN RE DISBARMENT OF ITHAMAR TRACY |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied. May 8, 1936, Reported at 197 Minn. at 47.
Proceeding for the disbarment of Ithamar Tracy, an attorney at law. The matter was originally referred to the Honorable John A Roeser, one of the judges of the seventh judicial district and subsequently, upon filing of supplemental charges, to the Honorable Gustavus Loevinger, one of the judges of the second judicial district, both of whom filed findings of fact. Judgment of disbarment ordered.
Attorney and client -- disbarment -- misconduct as to client.
1. Attorney, engaged in the business of liquidating the indebtedness of small debtors, disbarred for soliciting business; wilfully assuming a status wherein his personal interest was opposed to that of his client without so advising the latter; deliberately making exploitation of, rather than service to, clients his professional objective; and by so conducting his practice as to subject the legal profession to disrepute.
Attorney and client -- conduct of attorney in general.
2. It does not follow that because certain conduct is usual or permissible in commercial business it is also permissible to a lawyer. That is because his vocation is a profession, with established standards of professional conduct, rather than a mere business.
Attorney and client -- disbarment -- proceedings -- statute.
Constitution -- legislative powers -- encroachment on judiciary.
3. 1 Mason Minn. St. 1927, § 5697, subd. 2, providing a two-year period of limitation for the bringing of disciplinary proceedings against an attorney, held unconstitutional as an attempted invasion by the legislature of the judicial field.
Oscar G. Haugland and Thomas E. Sands, Jr., for State Board of Law Examiners.
F. M. Miner and Ithamar Tracy, for respondent.
The accusations of misconduct against Mr. Tracy were made by three petitions of the State Board of Law Examiners, the original having been followed by two supplements. The evidence under the first was taken before the Honorable John A. Roeser, judge of the seventh judicial district, as referee, and that under the supplemental petitions before the Honorable Gustavus Loevinger, judge of the second judicial district. Our consideration of the case has been much aided by their exhaustive findings of the facts.
Mr. Tracy is now past 40 years of age. He was admitted to practice in 1918. For all but less than a year since, he has been much engaged in Minneapolis in a business the nature of which will be discussed later. With such qualities, it is strange that he had to make testimonial admission of utter ignorance not only of the tenor but also of the existence of the "Canons of Ethics" of his profession as adopted by the American Bar Association and the Minnesota State Bar Association. The comprehensive character of that ignorance continued until the chairman of the committee on ethics of the State Bar Association handed him a copy of the "Canons" in 1931. Judge Loevinger has this to say of his appearance as a witness on his own behalf: "At times it seemed that he was willing to resort to evasion, equivocation or subterfuge to gain an advantage or to escape from a difficulty."
The charges grow out of Mr. Tracy's activities as a liquidator of the indebtedness of small debtors, most of them in the ranks of labor. That sort of business he procured through systematized solicitation. The facts cannot be made to appear better than by quoting the findings of Judge Loevinger:
Accompanying each contract, on a printed form, was an "application for services of Ithamar Tracy in the adjustment, liquidation or payment of my bills and accounts payable." Completely filled in, it would give the reader much of the personal history of the signer and his whole status as to family, income, property, life insurance, etc. The whole would be very useful to a creditor subsequently wanting to collect a debt from the signer. Much of it was practically useless to a lawyer wanting only to serve him professionally. The last "question" of this so-called application was No. 14, reading thus:
"I authorize you to obtain such information as you may require concerning the statements made in this application and agree that the application shall remain your property whether or not your services are obtained."
Mr. Tracy has not invited our attention to anything to explain, to say nothing of justifying, that authorization. The point is that any right-minded lawyer, having properly obtained so much written information concerning one intending to become his client, would have perceived the impropriety of retaining the document in his possession if the relationship of attorney and client was not in fact entered into.
Again quoting Judge Loevinger:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial