In re Mitchell

• Decision Date: 27 March 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 336
• Citation: 196 Ala. 430,71 So. 467
• Parties: In re MITCHELL
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

71 So. 467

196 Ala. 430

In re MITCHELL

6 Div. 336

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 27, 1916

Original proceeding in Supreme Court against James A. Mitchell. Discharged.

Be it ordered by the court that one James A. Mitchell, Esq., of Birmingham, Ala., be and is hereby cited to appear before this court at Montgomery, Ala., on Monday, the 27th day of March, 1916, and then and there show cause why his name should not be purged from the roll of practicing attorneys in this court, and why he should not be adjudged guilty of a contempt of this court (one or both), because of the writing publishing, or utterance of a certain publication appearing in a weekly newspaper called the Alabama Democrat, published at Montgomery, Ala., on February 10, 1916, in words and figures, as follows, to wit (the substance of which sufficiently appears in the specifications):

Specifications.

Be it ordered by the court that whereas, James A. Mitchell, Esq., a practicing attorney of Birmingham, Ala., and whose name appears upon the roll of attorneys of this court, was on the 21st day of February, 1916, cited to appear on March 27 1916, and answer said citation, the issuance of same having been induced by a certain publication of February 10th in the Alabama Democrat, and a copy of which was set out in haec verba as an exhibit:

Now therefore, in order that the said Mitchell be specifically informed as to the part or parts of said publication that impressed the court as transcending the bounds of privileged criticism and which caused the said citation, the following specifications are made:

First. In criticizing and commenting upon the opinion in the case of Ex parte Seals Piano & Organ Co., 188 Ala. 443, 66 So. 146 you dealt with a cause that was pending in this court for final decision, and you are called upon to answer whether or not you knew of the pendency of said cause, and whether or not your attack upon the first opinion was made with the intent of intimidating or influencing the court upon the final determination of said cause.

Second. In your criticism of and comment upon the opinion of this court in the case of Manfredo v. Manfredo, 68 So 157, appears the following language:

"I accepted the decision in this case, however, with patience, barring possible temporary observations more or less vituperative, and finally concluded that, as my clients were foreigners, it might have been expecting too much to look for a decision in their favor against a widow residing here."

Third. In the criticism of and comment upon the opinion of this court in the case of Sulzby v. Palmer, 70 So. 1, appears the following language:

"It looks like the court was groping around in the dark hunting for some pretext under which the complainant's rights could be defeated. It is difficult to conceive what the considerations would be which would actuate a court of last resort to go to such lengths to beat a man out of his money which he had loaned the defendant in good faith in order to build a home for her which had sheltered her and her family for many years."

The court entertains the opinion that the expressions above set out, not only transcend the bounds of propriety and privileged criticism, but are an unwarranted attack, direct, or by insinuation and innuendo, upon the motives and integrity of this court, and make out a prima facie case of improper conduct upon the part of a lawyer who holds a license from this court and who is under oath to demean himself with all good fidelity to the court as well as to his client.

The respondent made the following answer:

Now comes James A. Mitchell, and for answer to the writ issued out of this honorable court on the 21st day of February, 1916, commanding him to appear and show cause why his name should not be purged from the roll of practicing attorneys in this court, and why he should not be adjudged guilty of a contempt of this court (one or both), because of the writing, publishing, or utterance of a certain publication which appeared in the Alabama Democrat, a newspaper, on February 10, 1916, and more

...