In re Murray

• Decision Date: 27 October 1936
• Docket Number: 26851.
• Citation: 61 P.2d 1051,178 Okla. 86,1936 OK 674
• Parties: In re MURRAY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

61 P.2d 1051

178 Okla. 86, 1936 OK 674

In re MURRAY.

No. 26851.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Oct. 27, 1936

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Oklahoma try a cause and render findings thereon, this court will, on appeal, review and weigh the evidence, but will not reverse the finding unless it is against the clear weight thereof.

2. Record examined, and held: That the findings of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Oklahoma are not against the clear weight of the evidence and that respondent be reprimanded for unethical conduct.

Original proceeding to review an opinion of the Board of Governors of the State Bar of Oklahoma recommending the reprimand of J. F Murray, an attorney, of Ponca City, Okl.

Recommendation of the Board of Governors affirmed, and attorney reprimanded.

C. L Armstrong, H. R. Helmbrecht, and W. E. Rice, all of Ponca City, for J. F. Murray.

Frank G. Anderson, of Oklahoma City, and A. M. Widdows, of Tulsa for State Bar of Oklahoma.

GIBSON Justice.

This matter comes here on the petition of J. F. Murray, attorney at law, and a member of the State Bar of Oklahoma hereinafter referred to as respondent, to review the findings and recommendations of the Board of Governors of the State Bar to the effect that the respondent be reprimanded for violation of rule 31 of the rules of professional conduct.

The complaint arose out of the writing by respondent of certain letters to barbers of the state soliciting contributions toward the payment of his fee in connection with a case testing the validity of a law affecting barbers.

The material parts of the findings and recommendation of the Board of Governors follow:

"It appears from the answer and from the record that the respondent was employed by one Roy Peters, assuming to act as President of the Oklahoma Barbers Association, to test the validity of the law creating the Board of Barber Examiners of the State of Oklahoma but that before any civil action had been filed a criminal complaint was lodged against Roy Peters alleging the violation of the act; that Roy Peters was convicted, upon which conviction and a fine of one dollar was assessed against him, from which judgment of conviction an appeal was taken. In this proceeding the respondent acted as attorney for Roy Peters. The barbers of the State, not appearing disposed to contribute funds to pay the respondent's fees, Roy Peters suggested to him that the appeal be abandoned. This respondent declined to do because he had received payment of a sum of money from the barbers of Oklahoma City and Tulsa. With the knowledge and consent of Roy Peters, the respondent wrote the letter to the Miami Barber Shop.

The apparent purpose of the letter was to solicit the payment of additional fees to the respondent with the suggestion that if the barbers of the state 'did not respond to this proposition I am of course not disposed to proceed with the case.' The administrative committee concluded that Rule 29 of the rules of professional conduct interdicting the solicitation of business had not been violated and that neither had Rule 40 of the rules of professional conduct. That rule requires that a lawyer shall accept no compensation, commission, rebates,...