In re Kone

• Decision Date: 19 April 1916
• Citation: 90 Conn. 440,97 A. 307
• Parties: In re KONE.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

97 A. 307

90 Conn. 440

In re KONE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 19, 1916.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.

Application by Samuel C. Kone for reinstatement as member of the bar. From a judgment dismissing his application, he appeals. Affirmed.

Noble E. Pierce, of Hartford, and George E. Beers, of New Haven, for appellant. Hugh M. Alcorn, State's Atty., of Hartford, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. In 1908 the applicant was suspended from practice in the courts of this state "until further order of the court." for conduct unbecoming an attorney. Shortly thereafter he presented an application for reinstatement, which was promptly withdrawn without a hearing. In 1910 he presented a second application, which was also withdrawn after the hearing thereon was almost, if not quite, completed. April 21, 1915, he filed the present application, which, after a full hearing, was denied.

The application thus denied was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, the answer to its prayer was to be determined in the exercise of that discretion, and the determination arrived at may not be disturbed by this court unless it clearly appears that the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to be heard, a fair and dispassionate hearing and investigation, and a reasonable exercise of the judicial discretion. In re Durant, 80 Conn. 140, 150, 67 Atl. 497, 10 Ann. Cas. 539.

No complaint is made, nor can be, that the applicant was not accorded his full rights in the matter of hearing and investigation. He is therefore compelled to rest his cause in this court upon the ground that the superior court, upon the evidence before it, abused its discretion in refusing reinstatement. Our review of the record not only fails to establish that contention, but convinces us that, had the court granted the application, it would have failed in its plain duty.

Much was said in the testimony of witnesses in the applicant's behalf before the superior court and in argument here to the general effect that the applicant had been sufficiently punished for the offense for which he was suspended. That view of the case entirely misconceives the question before the court for decision. Disbarment and suspension from practice are not visited upon offending practitioners as a means or measure of punishment. They are steps taken by the court, whose officer the attorney is, for its own protection and that of the public from the misconduct of...