In re Gill
Citation | 104 Wash. 160,176 P. 11 |
Decision Date | 19 November 1918 |
Docket Number | 23. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Parties | In re GILL et al. |
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.
This cause is a consolidation of three separate proceedings, which were by stipulation consolidated and heard together before the State Board of Law Examiners, and is now in this court for final disposition upon the report of the evidence 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Ades
...S. 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......
-
State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell
...282 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. 57......
-
State ex rel. Laughlin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n
... ... appeals for the ninth circuit, in McVicar v. State Board ... of Law Examiners, D.C 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 1921, chapter 126, p. 417, removed the objectionable ... features of the 1917 statute ... ...
-
State Bar of Okla. v. Mcghee
...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......
-
Table of Cases
...7–48; 7–48 nn.410, 411; 7–49 n.425; 7–51 n.435; 7–55 nn.471-473; 7–56 n.479; 7–57 n.487; 7–58; 7–58 nn.493-498; 16–58; 16–59 Gill, In re, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11 (1918): 2–46 n.340 Goncharuk v. Barrong, 132 Wn.App. 745, 133 P.3d 510 (2006), review denied, 159 Wn.2d 1002 (2007): 9–16 nn.91,......
-
§2.3 Unauthorized Practice of Law
...v. Merchs.' Protective Corp., 105 Wash. 12, 177 P. 694 (1919). 338.Id. at 13. 339.Id. at 13-14. 340.Id. at 17-18; see also In re Gill, 104 Wash. 160, 176 P. 11 (1918) (finding that the affiliated lawyers had impermissibly solicited legal 341.In re Droker, 59 Wn.2d 707, 370 P.2d 242 (1962). ......