In re Tall
Decision Date | 25 April 1936 |
Parties | In re Disbarment Proceeding Against Joseph S. Tall |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Respondent suspended for six months.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Franklin E Reagan, Assistant Attorney General, for informants.
(1) An attorney who solicits divorce suits by advertisements in newspapers and magazines, should be disbarred; (a) it is a misdemeanor; (b) it is sufficient grounds for disbarment. (a) It is a misdemeanor. Secs. 4267, 11707, R. S. 1929; Mayer v. State Bar of California, 26 P.2d 9; People v Smith, 66 N.E. 27. (b) It is sufficient grounds for disbarment. In re Scoular, 123 P. 13; In re Cohen, 159 N.E. 495; In re Schwarz, 132 N.E 921; In re Donovan, 178 N.W. 143; People v. MacCabe, 32 P. 280; People v. Berezniak, 127 N.E. 36; In re Schnitzer, 112 P. 848; In re Disbarment of Oliensis, 26 Pa. Dist. Rep. 853; People ex rel. v. Taylor, 75 P. 914; Mayer v. State Bar of Cal., 39 P.2d 206. (2) Respondent is a common barrator. Secs. 645, 3926, R. S. 1929; Commonwealth v. Davis, 28 Mass. 432; State v. Noell, 295 S.W. 529; State v. Chitty, 1 Bailey, 379; State ex rel. v. Rossman, 101 P. 357. (3) Respondent's conduct in divorce cases has been fraudulent, (a) in knowingly permitting clients to testify falsely as to their residence, and, (b) in preparing and using depositions in Missouri which purported to have been taken in other States. (a) In knowingly permitting clients to testify falsely as to their residence. Sec. 1351, R. S. 1929; Kruse v. Kruse, 25 Mo. 68; Hays v. Hays, 282 S.W. 57; DiBrigida v. DiBrigida, 172 A. 508; State v. Herren, 94 S.E. 698; Williams v. Williams, 78 A. 695; Andrade v. Andrade, 128 P. 816; Butler v. Butler, 134 N.Y.S. 108; Cohen v. Cohen, 84 A. 123; Halpine v. Halpine, 52 Pa. S.Ct. 86; Smilie v. Smilie, 141 P. 829; Kadello v. Kadello, 29 P.2d 171; Lister v. Lister, 97 A. 170; Benson v. Benson, 40 F.2d 159; Wagoner v. Wagoner, 229 S.W. 1064; Coffey v. Coffey, 71 S.W.2d 141. (b) In preparing and using depositions in Missouri which purported to have been taken in other States. Sec. 1758, R. S. 1929.
Waldo Edwards, Charles W. Shelton, Frank Cottey and George N. Davis for respondents.
(1) Respondent has not been proceeded against for a misdemeanor nor is the mere commission of a misdemeanor not involving moral turpitude grounds for disbarment. If judgment is sought under the statute, the statute must be followed. The respondent is not guilty of a misdemeanor under Section 4267. This proceeding is under the general power of the court. Where disbarment has been sought of attorneys advertising in divorce matters in newspapers and magazines, disbarment has been the exception rather than the rule. Unless accompanied by acts involving moral turpitude or willful disregard of the court's orders, it has not, as a rule, been resorted to. The facts in this case do not warrant such drastic action. Respondent's life has been devoted to the general practice of the law, and no person, or client, has been heard to complain of his conduct. People v. Berezniak, 127 N.E. 36. (2) Respondent is not a common barrator. There is no testimony whatever that he ever urged any person to file a divorce suit or that he sought to stir up domestic discontent. It is solely with regard to the venue of such suits that any question can be raised. (3) The testimony does not warrant the charge that the respondent knowingly allowed clients to testify falsely as to their residences. He made no secret of his belief that his clients might establish a residence in Missouri and no matter how short a time they may have resided here, if the causes for divorce occurred while they so resided, that any divorce action might be successfully prosecuted. Hays v. Hays, 291 S.W. 508. The testimony shows that if this matter had been allowed to take its course, the whole matter would have soon died a natural death. An erroneous theory of law cannot long prevail in the courts.
Original proceeding to disbar an attorney at law. The pleadings are not questioned, and the facts may be stated as follows:
For many years Joseph S. Tall has practiced law at Kahoka, Missouri. He is sixty-six years of age. In 1932 he published a twelve page book entitled SYNOPSIS OF THE DIVORCE LAW. It contained a statement as follows:
He engaged the services of a national agency to advertise the book. Advertisements appeared in the Police Gazette, Grit, Pathfinder and Screen Fund. An advertisement follows:
The box was registered in his name. Keokuk is twenty-two miles from Kahoka. It will be noted that the advertisement does not mention respondent Tall.
Another advertisement follows:
He mailed to persons answering the advertisement and sending a dollar a copy of the book, a reprint from the Omaha World Herald extolling the virtues of respondent as a divorce lawyer, and a form letter requesting a statement of the marital troubles and a retainer fee of ten dollars. In part said newspaper article follows:
As a result of respondent's activities a number of divorce suits were filed by him in the circuit court at Kahoka. The plaintiffs resided either in Minnesota, Virginia New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa or New York. Usually the proprietor of the hotel or an employee of the hotel was the character witness for plaintiff. The plaintiffs present at the trial testified that they resided in Kahoka. They were in the State only for "dinner" or "a few days or weeks." After the trial they left the State. In two cases plaintiffs came to Missouri and filed suit. They then...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leimer v. Hulse
...person to be entrusted with the responsibilities and obligations of an attorney or to exercise the privilege of an attorney. In re Tall, 339 Mo. 11, 93 S.W.2d 923; In re Lacy, 234 Mo.App. 71, 112 S.W.2d 594; Rule Supreme Court of Missouri. (6) The information states facts showing a want of ......
-
State ex rel. Morton v. Cave
...341; In re Conrad, 340 Mo. 582, 105 S.W.2d 1; In re Noell, 96 S.W.2d 213; In re Gallant, 231 Mo.App. 150, 95 S.W.2d 1249; In re Tall, 339 Mo. 11, 93 S.W.2d 922; In re Farris, 340 Mo. 1206, 105 S.W.2d Chas. H. Mayer for respondents. (1) Because there was no motion for rehearing and no motion......
-
Curry v. Dahlberg
... ... investigate and act on "any matter of professional ... misconduct." That this cannon of ethics is being ... enforced may be seen from the following cases. [ In re ... Noell (Mo. App.), 96 S.W.2d 213; In re Gallant (Mo ... App.), 95 S.W.2d 1249; In re Tall, 339 Mo. 11, ... 93 S.W.2d 922; In re Sparrow, 338 Mo. 203, 90 S.W.2d ... 401; In re H S , 229 Mo.App. 44, 69 S.W.2d 325.] ... These committees are also charged to "make inquiry from ... time to time as to the unlawful [341 Mo. 907] practice of law ... by persons not licensed to do so, ... ...
- State v. Ring