In re Stern

• Decision Date: 28 December 1937
• Citation: 299 Mass. 107,12 N.E.2d 100
• Parties: In re STERN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

299 Mass. 107

12 N.E.2d 100

In re STERN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Dec. 28, 1937.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Gibbs, Judge.

Disbarment proceedings in the matter of Frank Stern, an attorney at law. To review an order for disbarment, the attorney brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Frank Stern pro se.

COX, Justice.

The respondent, a member of the bar, pleaded guilty in the Superior Court to two indictments charging the larceny of $11,400. The indictments were placed on file. Thereafter, by order of court and upon its own motion, the order reciting in effect that the respondent had pleaded guilty to these indictments and that it appeared that he was a member of the bar, order of notice issued requiring him to appear before the court for the transaction of criminal business on a stated day and show cause why he should not be disbarred from further practice in the courts of the Commonwealth. The respondent appeared as directed and, as he alleges in his bill of exceptions, ‘after a hearing’ an order of disbarment was entered. The judge who heard the disbarment proceedings was the same judge before whom the respondent had entered his pleas of guilty. The bill of exceptions further recites that the respondent alleges the court, ‘by virtue of its inherent power to control the conduct of its affairs, has a summary jurisdiction to inquire into the conduct of its officers, and to deal with an attorney found to have committed any evil practice contrary to justice and honesty,’ but he excepted to the order of disbarment, ‘since there was no hearing held by the Court to determine by evidence whether or not the respondent had committed any or all of the alleged crimes in the said criminal cases, and since the disbarment proceeding against the respondent has been so conducted that he has been deprived of due process of law.'

The respondent, for the first time, raises in this court the question of jurisdiction. It is open to him. Matter of Mayberry, Mass., 3 N.E.2d 248, 105 A.L.R. 976. His precise point is that the Superior Court, in a session held for the transaction of criminal business, had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Superior Court is a court of original and general jurisdiction and possesses the inherent powers of such a court under the common law, unless expressly limited, as well as those conferred by statute. Commonwealth v. Kemp, 254 Mass. 190, 150 N.E. 172; G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 212. While it is true that a proceeding such as this is civil and not criminal in character, Matter of Mayberry, supra, yet this characteristic has generally been confined to questions of evidence, the required amount of proof and other matters of procedure. Matter of Keenan, 287 Mass. 577, 192 N.E. 65, 96 A.L.R. 679;Matter of Ulmer, 268 Mass. 373, 167 N.E. 749. In the case of Randall, Petitioner, 11 Allen 473, the proceedings for disbarment, which were complained of but were upheld, were had in the Superior Court held for the transaction of criminal business, although no jurisdictional question was raised. As was said in Bar Association of Boston v. Casey, 211 Mass. 187, at page 192, 97 N.E. 751, 754, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 116, Ann.Cas.1913A, 1226, ‘A proceeding for disbarment is simply the exercise of jurisdiction over an officer, an inquiry into his conduct not for the purpose of granting redress to a client or other person for wrong done, but only for the maintenance of the purity and dignity of the court by removing an unfit officer. As stated * * * in Fairfield County Bar v....