In re Hopkins

• Decision Date: 27 August 1909
• Citation: 103 P. 805,54 Wash. 569
• Parties: In re HOPKINS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

103 P. 805

54 Wash. 569

In re HOPKINS.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 27, 1909

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; William A Huneke and Henry L. Kennan, Judges.

Application for the disbarment of James Hopkins, an attorney. From a judgment of permanent disbarment, he appeals. Affirmed.

Lucius G. Nash, for appellant.

Frank T. Post, Cyrus Happy, and Robt. L. McWilliams, for respondents.

PARKER J.

This is an appeal by James Hopkins from a judgment of the superior court for Spokane county permanently disbarring him from practicing as an attorney in the courts of this state. Among other charges made against him is the following: 'Come now the undersigned, practicing attorneys at law of the state of Washington and members of the Spokane bar, duly appointed by the above-entitled court to investigate the charges heretofore made against James Hopkins, an attorney of the Spokane, Washington, bar, and charge the said James Hopkins with unprofessional conduct, the commission of misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, and the violation of the oath taken by him as such attorney at law, and more particularly set forth as follows, to wit: (1) That at divers times during the years of 1903 and 1904 the said James Hopkins, acting as a notary public in and for the state of Washington, did in his jurat and certificate to certain affidavits and declarations to be used, and used, in claims for pensions knowingly certify that the affiants and certifying witnesses named in such affidavits and declarations each personally appeared before him and was sworn thereto and acknowledged the execution thereof, when in truth such affiants and such identifying witnesses, or any of them, did not at the time alleged, nor at any time, appear before him, the said James Hopkins, and that such parties were not then nor at any time sworn by him, and did not acknowledge the execution of such affidavits or declarations. That the said James Hopkins was in the federal court for the Eastern district of Washington tried, convicted, and sentenced for the commission of said acts.' A demurrer was interposed by appellant to this first charge, which was by the court overruled, when he answered, and the cause proceeded to trial upon the merits before the court, Judges William A. Huneke and Henry L. Kennan presiding, at the conclusion of which the court made findings and conclusions against appellant substantially as charged, and entered judgment thereon as above indicated.

We will first dispose of the contention made upon this first charge, which, as we view the case, will determine the legal correctness of the disposition of the cause by the learned trial court, leaving out of consideration for the present the discretion exercised by the court in permanently disbarring appellant, rather than suspending him for a definite limited period. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that the evidence does not warrant the findings of the court upon the first charge. We conclude, however, after a careful review of the admissions in the answer and the evidence given upon the trial, that the facts charged by that part of the complaint above quoted and so found by the court are fully sustained.

The question presented upon the exception to the court's ruling upon the demurrer and to the exception to the court's conclusions of law, so far as the first charge is concerned, are the same, so we will consider them together the contention of counsel being that the acts charged and in substance found by the court against appellant, and upon which he was convicted in the federal court, do not involve moral turpitude within the meaning of section 4775 of Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. (Pierce's Code, § 3197) which provides: 'An attorney and counselor may be removed or suspended by any court of record of the state, for either of the following causes, arising after his admission to practice: (1) His conviction of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, in which case the record of conviction shall be conclusive evidence. * * *' These acts upon which the conviction of appellant was had in the federal court constitute a grave offense against the pension laws of the United States punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years. Rev. St. U.S. § 4746 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3279). The gravity of the offense is thus indicated, though it may be conceded this does not determine the question of its involving moral...