In re The Disbarment of J. F. Sanford

• Decision Date: 07 February 1925
• Docket Number: 26,080
• Citation: 232 P. 1053,117 Kan. 750
• Parties: In re THE DISBARMENT OF J. F. SANFORD
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

232 P. 1053

117 Kan. 750

In re THE DISBARMENT OF J. F. SANFORD

No. 26,080

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 7, 1925

Decided January, 1925

Original proceeding in disbarment.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. ATTORNEY AT LAW--Disbarment Proceedings--Conviction of Misdemeanor Under City Ordinance Does Not Work a Disbarment. There is a statutory provision to the effect that upon receiving a copy of a record of the conviction of an attorney for the commission of a felony or misdemeanor, involving moral turpitude, the court shall enter an order of disbarment (R. S. 7-110), and upon an application to enter such an order it is held that the offenses therein mentioned do not apply to violations of city ordinances, but only to offenses defined in an act of the legislature wherein the punishment for a violation is prescribed; and it is further held that the conviction referred to is one rendered by a court of record in an action prosecuted by the state in its own name and not one prosecuted in the name of a city before a police judge.

2. SAME--Jurisdiction of District Court on Appeal from Police Court. In the trial of an appeal from a judgment of a police judge for the violation of a city ordinance, the district court is for the time being acting as a police judge, and is required to try it as it should have been tried before the police judge, and the judgment entered is essentially that of a police judge.

C. B. Griffith, attorney-general, and Charles D. Shukers, of Independence, for the accusers.

Charles Bucher, and Barney Bucher, both of Coffeyville, for the accused.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

The theory of Kansas law is that those admitted to practice law and who continue in it shall be persons who obey the law and maintain a high standard of personal and professional integrity. In a statute relating to the admission of attorneys to practice law, and to the disbarment and suspension of those who may be guilty of misconduct, there is a provision to the effect that upon the conviction of a lawyer of a crime involving moral turpitude and a record of it has been transmitted to this court, it shall enter an order of disbarment. J. F. Sanford, a practicing attorney who had been duly admitted, was charged with having intoxicating liquor in his possession in violation of a city ordinance and was convicted in the police court of the city of Independence. An appeal from the conviction was taken to the district court, and the trial there resulted in a finding of guilty. The sentence imposed was that he should pay a fine to the city of $ 100 and be imprisoned in the city jail for a period of thirty days. The fine was paid, the imprisonment suffered, and the penalties fully carried out. Thereupon the clerk of the court transmitted a certified copy of the record to this court on the theory that it fell within the statutory provisions mentioned. The section reads:

"That in the case of the conviction of an attorney at law, who has been admitted to the bar of this state, of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, the clerk of the court in which such conviction is had must within thirty days thereafter transmit to the supreme court a certified copy of the record of conviction, and the supreme court upon receipt of such record must enter an order disbarring such attorney. Upon reversal of such conviction, or pardon by the governor, the supreme court shall have the power to vacate such order of disbarment." (R. S. 7-110.)

Does an entry of the record of conviction operate to disbar the defendant, and that inquiry involves the question whether the conviction for a violation of a city ordinance falls within the statute, and also whether such a violation is a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude within the meaning of that statute. It may be noted that...