In re Gill, 23.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtPARKER, J.
Citation104 Wash. 160,176 P. 11
PartiesIn re GILL et al.
Decision Date19 November 1918
Docket Number23.

176 P. 11

104 Wash. 160

In re GILL et al.

No. 23.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

November 19, 1918


On Report from State Board of Law Examiners.

Disbarment proceedings against Hiram C. Gill, Heber B. Hoyt, and Hermon S. Frye. Heard in the Supreme Court on report from the Board of Law Examiners and the findings made by it. Accused reprimanded.

W. V. Tanner, of Olympia, and Thos. Murphine, of Seattle, opposed.

PARKER, J.

This cause is a consolidation of three separate proceedings, which were by stipulation consolidated and heard together before the State Board [104 Wash. 162] of Law Examiners, and is now in this court for final disposition upon the report of the evidence [176 P. 12] produced before that board and the findings made by it. The findings are against each of the accused.

The proceedings were had before the board in pursuance of chapter 115, Laws of 1917. Our recent decision in Re Bruen, 172 P. 1152, interpreting that law in the light of the Constitution and the inherent power of this court relating to the disbarment and disciplining of attorneys as officers of the courts, makes it our duty to dispose of the cause upon the evidence produced before the board and reported to us, and also upon the findings of the board, except in so far as we may conclude that the latter are not supported by the evidence.

The accused are each duly admitted to practice law in the courts of this state and have been engaged in the practice of law as copartners in Seattle for some 18 years past. It is alleged that they have been guilty of unprofessional conduct, in that they solicited business, or rather caused another to solicit business for them, through entering into the following contract:

'This agreement, made and entered into this 19th day of June, 1917, by and between the Merchants' Protective Corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the state of Indiana, and authorized to do business in the state of Washington, the party of the first part, and Gill, Hoyt &amp Frye, attorneys at law, of Seattle, Washington, the parties of the second part, witnesseth
'That both parties hereunto are mutually desirous of entering into an agreement whereby said second parties are to represent the first party as its attorney with clients in office advice and consultations free, free representation as defendants in police and justice of the peace courts only
'Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained, it is mutually [104 Wash. 163] agreed by and between the parties hereto that the second parties shall act as attorneys for members holding paid membership certificates in the company of the first part in matters covered as above and by said membership certificate, and shall receive therefor in advance from the party of the first part the sum of one ($1) dollar per client for new clients and the sum of two ($2) dollars in renewed members per year, for which they shall furnish consultation and advice, legal and otherwise, at their office, and defend members in police court and the justice court in
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • In re Ades, No. 978.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 19, 1934
    ...W. 919, 926, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 122 (disbarment or suspension); In re Gorsuch, 113 Kan. 380, 214 P. 794 (disbarment); and see In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11 (censure); Ingersoll v. Coal Co., 117 Tenn. 263, 310, 98 S. W. 178, 10 Ann. Cas. 829; People v. Edelson, 313 Ill. 601, 145 N. E. 2......
  • State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 30, 1954
    ...N.W. 677, 284 N.W. 888; Barton v. State Bar of California, 209 Cal. 677, 289 P. 818; In re L. R., 7 N.J. 390, 81 A.2d 725; In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11 and In re Bruener, 178 Wash. 165, 34 P.2d 437; United States v. Costen, C.C., 38 F. 24; People ex rel. v. McCallum, 341 Ill. 578, 1......
  • State ex rel. Laughlin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n, 30058.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • January 7, 1947
    ...6 F.2d 33. Judge Webster points out that, following the rendition of the opinion in the Bruen case, supra, this court decided In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11; In re Mills, 104 Wash. 278, 176 P. 556, and [176 P.2d 304] In re Ward, 106 Wash. 147, 179 P. 76, and further holds that Laws of......
  • State Bar of Okla. v. Mcghee, Case Number: 21206
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 21, 1931
    ...cited in the briefs, we find the following decisions: In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472, 172 P. 1152, and cases cited therein, and In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11, and In re Scott (Nev.) 292 P. 291, decided by the Supreme Court of Nevada, as well as various California cases that are cited wit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • In re Ades, No. 978.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 19, 1934
    ...W. 919, 926, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 122 (disbarment or suspension); In re Gorsuch, 113 Kan. 380, 214 P. 794 (disbarment); and see In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11 (censure); Ingersoll v. Coal Co., 117 Tenn. 263, 310, 98 S. W. 178, 10 Ann. Cas. 829; People v. Edelson, 313 Ill. 601, 145 N. E. 2......
  • State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 30, 1954
    ...N.W. 677, 284 N.W. 888; Barton v. State Bar of California, 209 Cal. 677, 289 P. 818; In re L. R., 7 N.J. 390, 81 A.2d 725; In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11 and In re Bruener, 178 Wash. 165, 34 P.2d 437; United States v. Costen, C.C., 38 F. 24; People ex rel. v. McCallum, 341 Ill. 578, 1......
  • State ex rel. Laughlin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n, 30058.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • January 7, 1947
    ...6 F.2d 33. Judge Webster points out that, following the rendition of the opinion in the Bruen case, supra, this court decided In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11; In re Mills, 104 Wash. 278, 176 P. 556, and [176 P.2d 304] In re Ward, 106 Wash. 147, 179 P. 76, and further holds that Laws of......
  • State Bar of Okla. v. Mcghee, Case Number: 21206
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 21, 1931
    ...cited in the briefs, we find the following decisions: In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472, 172 P. 1152, and cases cited therein, and In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11, and In re Scott (Nev.) 292 P. 291, decided by the Supreme Court of Nevada, as well as various California cases that are cited wit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT