In re Info. To Discipline Certain Attorneys of the Sanitary Dist. of Chicago

• Decision Date: 23 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 20357.,20357.
• Citation: 184 N.E. 332,351 Ill. 206
• Parties: In re INFORMATION TO DISCIPLINE CERTAIN ATTORNEYS OF THE SANITARY DIST. OF CHICAGO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

351 Ill. 206

184 N.E. 332

In re INFORMATION TO DISCIPLINE CERTAIN ATTORNEYS OF THE SANITARY DIST. OF CHICAGO.

No. 20357.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 23, 1932.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Feb. 23, 1933.

Information by the People, on the relation of the Chicago Bar Association, to discipline Charles F. Brown and others, attorneys at law.

Decision in accordance with opinion.John L. Fogle and Willard R. Matheny, both of Chicago (Walter F. Dodd, William P. Sidley, Francis X. Busch, Charles P. Megan, Walter H. Eckert, Richard Bentley, and Albert E. Jenner, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for relator.

George A. Cooke and David R. Clarke, both of Chicago (Colin C. H. Fyffe and John Harrington, both of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent Harry J. Berman.

Rose & Symmes, of Chicago, for respondents John M. Beverly, and others.

Wm. Scott Stewart, Henry E. Jacobs, John B. King, and John S. Hall, all of Chicago, pro se.

Daniel V. Gallery, of Chicago (William J. Corrigan, of Chicago, of counsel), pro se.

Al F. Gorman, of Chicago (Anthony J. Schmidt, of Chicago, of counsel), pro se.

Eugene L. McGarry, of Chicago (Thomas J. Symmes, of Chicago, of counsel), pro se.

Justus Chancellor and Carl H. Lundquist, both of Chicago, for respondent Carl H. Lundquist.

James Hartnett and Victor I. Ohrenstein, both of Chicago, for respondent Victor I. Ohrenstein.

Everett Jennings, of Chicago, John R. Fitzgerald, of Decatur, and Thomas P. Grant, of Chicago, for respondent Thomas P. Grant.

James J. Barbour, of Chicago, for respondent Stephen A. Malato.

James J. Danaher, of Chicago, for respondent John C. Garriott, Jr.

George W. Miller, Angus Roy Shannon, and Grover C. Niemeyer, all of Chicago (James Hamilton Lewis, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent Maclay Hoyne.

Philip J. O'Mahony, of Chicago, for respondent John R. Horan.

Fyffe & Clarke, of Chicago (Colin C. H. Fyffe and John Harrington, both of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent Roy J. Egan.

George A. Cooke and Rose & Symmes, all of Chicago, for respondent George H. Mason.

Frank P. Zaleski, of Chicago, for respondent Leo V. Roeder.

Justus Chancellor and Sumner C. Palmer, both of Chicago, for respondent Mark J. McNamara.

Thomas D. Nash and Michael J. Ahern, both of Chicago, for respondent James J. McDermott.

Altheimer & Mayer, of Chicago (Gideon S. Thompson, of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent Meyer D. Kaufman.

Jacob G. Grossberg, of Chicago, for respondent Sidney Lyon.

John T. Richards, of Chicago, for respondent William S. Newburger.

Hopkins, Starr & Godman, of Chicago (Elwood G. Godman and Marcus Whiting, both of Chicago, of counsel), for respondent David S. Chesrow.

STONE, J.

This is an information filed, on leave granted, by the people, on the relation of the Chicago Bar Association, against fifty-six members of the bar practicing in Cook county. The charges therein arise out of the employment of these various members of the bar by the sanitary district of Chicago during the period between July 1, 1925, and December 31, 1928. The information charges that these attorneys are guilty of malfeasance in office as members of the bar of this court. It charges that two of the respondents, while acting as attorneys for the district, acquiesced in the placing of an excessive number of lawyers on the payroll of the law department of the district and in payment to them of salaries grossly in excess of the value of their services to the district, thereby permitting fraud to be perpetrated on the public. Fifty-four are charged with having received salaries from the district without rendering adequate or substantial services therefor. During the pendency of the cause four of the respondents died, and as to them the proceeding is abated. Answers having been filed, the cause was referred to Hon. Thomas Taylor, judge of the circuit court of Cook county, as commissioner, to take evidence and report the same together with his conclusions and recommendations. The commissioner took evidence and filed his report. Exceptions were filed thereto by various respondents, and by the relator as to certain recommendations, and briefs and arguments have been filed in this court.

As to the fifty-four respondents the commissioner's report recommends the disbarment of eight, the suspension for two years of eight, the suspension for one year of eleven, the censure of seventeen, and the discharge of the rule as to nine. As to respondent Edward H. Leubeck no recommendation was made, but the commissioner asks for further instructions. The commissioner recommended that the rule be discharged as to respondents Hector A. Brouillet, Samuel J. Graff, and Paul A. Holleb. The relator having filed no exceptions to the commissioner's report as to them, it is affirmed and the rule as to them is discharged. The remaining six as to whom the commissioner recommends discharge of the rule are John B. King, Eugene L. McGarry, William Scott Stewart, Charles F. Brown, John M. Lowery, and John R. McCabe. The relator has filed exceptions concerning the finding and recommendation of the commissioner as to these respondents, but to the recommendation concerning the last three no briefs have been filed. Those respondents as to whom the commissioner recommends disbarment are as follows: Frank J. Brewbaker, Kleofas Jurgelonis, Stephen A. Malato, Harry Mantell, Adam E. Patterson, Joseph E. Paulissen, and George H. Mason. Respondents Mantell and Paulissen filed no answer to the information and were found to be in default. Those as to whom the commissioner recommended suspension for a period of two years are Arthur Donoghue, Daniel V. Gallery, John C. Garriott, Jr., Thomas P. Grant, Maclay Hoyne, Henry E. Jacobs, Nathan A. Lawrence, and Medard A. Kunz. The commissioner recommended that the followingrespondents be suspended for a period of one year: Harry J. Berman, David S. Chesrow, Al F. Gorman, Joseph A. Kolb, Philip A. Lozowick, Carl H. Lundquist, Mark J. McNamara, G. Edwin Mitchell, William S. Newsburger, and Victor I. Ohrenstein. The last-named respondent filed no briefs supporting his exceptions to the commissioner's recommendation. As to the following respondents the commissioner recommended discipline by censure: John M. Beverly, John J. Dillon, Robert H. Eberle, Roy J. Egan, John F. Higgins, Meyer D. Kaufman, Edward P. Luczak, Sidney S. Lyon, Arthur F. Manning, James J. McDermott, Abraham L. Missner, Leo V. Roeder, Augustus L. Williams, Eugene M. Hines, John R. Horan, John S. Hall, and Ivor L. Smith. The four respondents last named filed no briefs in support of their exceptions to the commissioner's recommendation.

The charge in the information as to all respondents except Hoyne, Brouillet, and Garriott is that they took the funds of the sanitary district in the form of salary as assistant attorneys for the district which they knew they had not earned, when the number of lawyers so placed on the pay rolls was grossly in excess of the number necessary to carry on the work of the law department of the district. As to certain of the respondents the charge is that they did not render adequate services for the money paid them, and as to others it is charged that they rendered no substantial services for the salary received from the district. The charge against Hoyne and Brouillet is that they acquiesced in the placing on the pay rolls of the district of many unnecessary attorneys. The charges as to respondent Garriott do not fall strictly in either class, since he is not charged with having received moneys of the district but procuring the payment of salary in the name of his brother-in-law, who, it is charged, rendered no service whatever to the district and did not know his name was on the pay roll until the pay check was delivered to him.

A large amount of evidence was taken by the commissioner, which is analyzed in an extended report filed by him. These charges, because of their similarity as to the different respondents, and in order to avoid much repetition in the record, have been joined in one proceeding. They naturally fall into two classes: Those attorneys charged with receiving the moneys of the district without rendering any services or grossly inadequate services therefor, and the case of Hoyne, whose alleged acquiescence in placing an excessive number of lawyers on the pay roll of the law department is declared to have made possible the defrauding of the public and the misuse of public funds.

We shall first consider the charges against those respondents other than Hoyne. In order to avoid injustice which might otherwise result to some of the respondents if treated as members of a class, it is necessary to consider the charges against each separately. In so doing we will first consider those recommended for discharge by the commissioner and as to which recommendations the relator has filed exceptions but no briefs in support thereof. These are Charles F. Brown, John M. Lowery, and John R. McCabe.

Respondent Charles F. Brown was at the time of the hearing forty-two years of age. He was admitted to the bar in February, 1913. He was employed by the sanitary district as an assistant attorney from June 15, 1927, to December 31, 1928, at $5,000 per year. He received a total of $7,708.21. His appointment was made on the recommendation of a political friend. It was understood that he did not want a full-time job. He was assigned a desk. A few days later he was sent to Springfield to lobby on tax matters. He examined some releases, prepared a brief in a damage case, wrote opinions, and worked on claims and some compensation cases. It appears that as a result of his service in the World War he was a partial paralytic, and that he therefore did not desire full time. He testified that he thought he was rendering services adequate for the compensation paid him. The commissioner found that he was not consciously blameworthy or willingly guilty of any dereliction in his relations to the sanitary district. Relator objects to...