In re Gowan

• Decision Date: 19 November 1918
• Citation: 104 Wash. 166,176 P. 7
• Parties: In re GOWAN.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

176 P. 7

104 Wash. 166

In re GOWAN.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

November 19, 1918

On Report from State Board of Law Examiners.

In the matter of the proceeding for the disbarment of Richard Gowan an attorney at law. Issues were joined and a hearing had before the State Board of Law Examiners, and the findings of the latter, with all the evidence in the case, have been reported for review by this court in accordance with its rules and Laws 1917, p. 421. Accused disbarred, and license annulled.

W. V Tanner and Hance H. Cleland, both of Olympia, and R. M Burgunder, of Colfax, opposed.

MITCHELL, J.

Richard Gowan, properly admitted, has been practicing law in this state for a number of years. He has been charged with violations of his oath and duties as an attorney and counselor at law in the commission of acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, and corruption. To the complaint an answer containing general denials was interposed, upon which issues a hearing was had before the state board of law examiners, whose findings, with all the evidence in the cause, have been reported for review by this court in accordance with its rules and chapter 115, Session Laws of 1917. An examination of the proof, in the face of some denials and evasion on the part of Mr. Gowan, fully satisfies us of conduct on his part that is deceitful and unprofessional.

1. In January, 1917, a claim was placed with him, for collection by one Sidelsky. Failing to collect, he was, at his own suggestion, authorized to institute suit in the justice of the peace court in April, 1917. He asked, and received, $3 to cover the cost of filing the suit and for service of process. Suit was not commenced. Shortly, however, and several times he informed his client that judgment had been obtained. About August, 1917, the debtor, casually learning Sidelsky claimed to hold a judgment against him, told Sidelsky that no papers had been served on him, that there was no judgment against him, and offered to pay the debt, which offer was refused without the advice of Mr. Gowan, who, on being spoken to, told Sidelsky not to accept unless costs were also paid. The debtor then offered to pay Mr. Gowan, who would not accept pay without costs, claiming that if he, the debtor, was not served with process, his wife was, and that there was a judgment against him. Sidelsky examined and found there was no judgment, upon report of which Mr. Gowan became abusive to him. Within a day or two the debtor paid Sidelsky, and just as the receipt was passed Mr. Gowan appeared and handled the debtor process and complaint in suit, together with written notice of claim of lien for attorney's fee of $5, whereupon Mr. Gowan was notified by...