In re The Disbarment of George W. Staton

• Decision Date: 04 November 1922
• Docket Number: 24,066
• Citation: 112 Kan. 226,210 P. 615
• Parties: In re THE DISBARMENT OF GEORGE W. STATON
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

210 P. 615

112 Kan. 226

In re THE DISBARMENT OF GEORGE W. STATON

No. 24,066

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 4, 1922

Decided July, 1922.

Original proceeding in disbarment.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. PROCEEDINGS IN DISBARMENT OF ATTORNEY--Certain Accusation Not Sustained. In a disbarment proceeding one charge was that the attorney attempted to procure a continuance of a cause and the issuance of an attachment for an absent witness representing to the district court that the return showed no demand for witness fees, although he had been informed by the officers who served the subpoena that the witness had demanded his fees and that they had not been paid. The commissioner made a finding that the accused acted inadvertently under a misapprehension of the real facts and intended no wrong, and as a conclusion of law dismissed the charge. The commissioner's findings of fact and conclusions of law in respect to this charge are approved, and the charge is dismissed.

2. SAME--Attempted Bribery of Officer--Charge Sustained. On the charge of attempted bribery of certain officers, in that the attorney placed a twenty-dollar bill in a bottle and offered and attempted to exchange it for a bottle containing intoxicating liquor held by the officers to be used as evidence in a liquor case, held, that the charge is sustained by the testimony; and the report of the commissioner recommending that the charge be dismissed is set aside, and judgment is rendered suspending the accused for the period of one year.

3. SAME--No Justification for Attempt to Bribe an Officer Shown. In seeking to avoid the charge of bribery of an officer, the attorney admitted placing the twenty-dollar bill in a bottle and giving it to one of two officers who had arrested a person charged with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, and attempted to justify his conduct by stating that he gave the money to them as a reward and to show his appreciation for their sending to him as a client the person they had arrested. Held, he thereby set up as a defense matters which, if true, are sufficient themselves to justify disbarment, being directly contrary to the provisions of rule 28 of the code of professional ethics adopted by the American Bar Association and the Bar Association of Kansas, and approved by this court (Judy & Gilbert v. Railway Co., 111 Kan. 46x), which rule reads, in part, as follows:

"It is disreputable to hunt up defects in title or other causes of action and inform thereof in order to be employed to bring suit, or to breed litigation by seeking out those with claims for personal injuries or those having any other grounds of action in order to secure them as clients, or to employ agents or runners for like purposes, or to pay or reward, directly or indirectly, those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office, or to remunerate policemen, court or prison officials, physicians, hospital attaches or others who may succeed, under the guise of giving disinterested friendly advice, in influencing the criminal, the sick and the injured, the ignorant or others, to seek his professional services. A duty to the public and to the profession devolves upon every member of the bar, having knowledge of such practices upon the part of any practitioner, immediately to inform thereof, to the end that the offender may be disbarred."

Richard J. Hopkins, attorney-general, and James A. Troutman, of Topeka, for the accusers.

A. H. Skidmore, and Don H. Elleman, both of Columbus, for the accused.

OPINION

PORTER, J.:

Disbarment proceedings were brought against George W. Staton, a member of the bar, whose residence is Baxter Springs. The accusation charged that on July 11, 1921, he willfully and maliciously offered and attempted to exchange a certain bottle, in which he had placed a smaller bottle containing a twenty-dollar bill, for a bottle then held by Charles Upson, city marshal, A. R. Weaver, policeman, and Turner Hendren, a special officer of the city of Baxter Springs, representing to them that the bottle he had contained more "kick" than the bottle they had, which they claimed held intoxicating liquor and which they were holding in their custody as evidence in the trial of the case of The State v. W. L. Blair, wherein Blair was charged with having intoxicating liquor in his possession in violation of law, the case then pending in justice court; that in pursuance of his unlawful attempt the accused succeeded in placing the bottle in the hands of Charles Upson, city marshal, but was prevented from obtaining possession of the bottle containing liquor by the officers, who returned the twenty-dollar bill to him.

Another accusation charged him with deceiving the district court willfully and maliciously and in violation of his oath of office and his duties as an attorney at law, in knowingly misrepresenting and attempting to mislead the court as follows:

In April, 1921, in a case pending in that court wherein he was an attorney for one party he caused to be issued a subpoena for one Art Nichols, a witness who demanded payment of his witness fees and mileage. The officer who served the subpoena immediately communicated this fact to the accused, but when the case was called for trial the accused asked for the issuance of an attachment for the witness and for a continuance of the case on account of the absence of the witness. The court inquired about the matter, and the accused presented the return, which failed to show a demand for witness fees, and pretended that his only knowledge on the subject was the officer's return. The court, hearing rumors that demand had been made for witness fees, investigated the matter and learned the truth, and when the court confronted the accused with the facts he made no denial of his knowledge concerning them.

The complaint against the accused was sworn to by E. B. Morgan of Galena, a member of the bar.

The substance of Upson's testimony is:

With the assistance of Hendren he arrested Blair on a liquor charge and seized some liquor. Blair inquired about attorneys and the witness recommended Geo. W. Staton. Hendren took Blair to Staton's office. Upson got word that Staton wanted to see him and went to the office. Staton said: "I got some stuff here that I will trade you for that stuff down there." Upson replied: "There is nothing doing George, what are you talking about?" Staton said: "This stuff is a whole lot better than what you got." Staton "had a square bottle with a pill bottle inside. . . . and something green inside of that. I said: 'Let me smell of it.' He grabbed it away and would not let me take the cork out of it. I supposed it was some strong stuff, and we was always jollying around. He laid it down and said, 'You will not trade,' and I said, 'No, I know what I got.'" Later in the evening Upson, Hendren and several others were standing in front of the drug store talking with the accused, who had a bottle in his hands. Upson grabbed it, and the accused said: "There is a good drink in there for you and Turner anyway." "I said, 'Well we will go down and take a shot.' We went down to the station and broke the bottle and there was a twenty-dollar bill in it. I put it away in the locker." About ten o'clock that night the accused called him over the telephone. "He and Turner had had some words on the street and he wanted to come down and see what I thought about it. . . . He thought Turner was accusing him of bribing, I did not feel that way about it at that time myself. . . . He wanted me to try to get Turner to think different. Turner would keep saying that it was a case of bribery." The following morning witness gave the bottle back to Staton and said: "Here George the rest of them don't seem satisfied with this I will give it back." The accused said: "If you feel that way about it I will accept it." "I said, 'That is the way the others feel, and if they do, I do, too.'

"Q. What do you mean by that? A. That they felt we had no right to it.

. . . .

"Q. And did you give it back for that reason? A. Yes, sir."

Policeman Hendren testified in substance as follows:

When Blair was arrested he wanted to get an attorney and suggested that he be taken to Galena to see Mr. Morgan. The witness told him that Staton was a pretty good attorney and would handle the case cheaper than Morgan because he was right there. At Blair's request he took him to Staton's office and left the two together. Shortly after, the three went in Staton's car to Blair's residence, where the Blairs put up a victrola and two diamonds as security for Staton's fee. In the car Staton said: "You don't know that is whisky in that bottle?" "I said 'Don't I.' He said, 'No, you don't; it may be water. . . . I got a bottle in my office that has more kick in it than that and I would trade it to you and you would have a real case.'" The witness thought at first he was joking. When they reached Staton's office he said again, "I have got a bottle upstairs, I am sure it is in my office right now, with more kick in it than this." Hendren became angry and said, "George you know, if you mean anything by that, that I don't do that kind of business." Later in the evening he was on the street where Upson and the accused were talking. Staton had the bottle in his hands, "a small-like bottle, and they were talking, first about one thing and another. . . . After that I noticed Upson put his hand out, and George (Staton) let loose of the bottle and said, 'all right I want you and Turner to have that. . . . I want you to split that, it may turn yellow but it is good stuff.'" At the police station, in the presence of Upson, he opened the bottle, "pulled out the cork and there was a twenty-dollar bill in the smaller bottle." The bottle was...