In re Winthrop

Citation237 P. 3,135 Wash. 135
Decision Date24 June 1925
Docket Number344.
PartiesIn re WINTHROP.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington

Disbarment proceeding against Louis Winthrop. Respondent suspended from the practice of law for one year.

John H Dunbar and R. G. Sharpe, both of Olympia, for plaintiff.

Tucker Hyland & Elvidge and Ernest B. Herald, all of Seattle, for defendant.

MITCHELL J.

This is a disbarment proceeding against Louis Winthrop. By the complaint he was charged with eight specific instances of unethical conduct in soliciting persons to employ him as an attorney at law. At the hearing, before the state board of law examiners, two of the transactions mentioned in the complaint were abandoned and at the same time an additional or new one was added. Upon the evidence produced, the board has made and filed its findings and recommendation, together with a transcript of the evidence as required by statute. The findings are against the respondent and the recommendation is that he be suspended for one year. The cause has been presented to us by attorneys for the respective sides upon the record including objections to the findings and recommendation of the board.

One objection urged is that it was improper to allow, over the objection of the respondent, the introduction of the new cause of complaint at the time of hearing before the board. The additional cause was similar in kind to the others and at the time it was proposed the suggestion or offer was made that time would be granted respondent to meet the charge if needed. The matter was within the power and discretion of the board. It can receive and act upon a complaint against an attorney at any time to the extent and for the purposes provided in the law. The board only acts upon the charges in the taking of the testimony and making its report to this court which exercises the power to disbar or suspend. Both inherently and under section 139-18, Rem. Comp. Stat., which provides that 'the Supreme Court shall render such judgment as the facts warrant or may remand the case to the board for further investigation and consideration,' we would in fairness upon a request and showing therefor on the part of the defendant sent a case back for further hearing. But neither before the board nor here has the respondent made any request or asked for additional time, but on the contrary met the state's proof on this additional cause by the testimony of himself and other witnesses called by him. We think there was no error or prejudice in the course pursued by the board in this respect.

An examination of the evidence satisfies us that the findings of the board are justified. The transactions complained of grew out of practice in the police court of Seattle. Of the instances mentioned in the complaint, there is evidence to show that very promptly after one was arrested and put in the city jail, whether in the day time or at night, whether the person knew or had ever heard of the respondent or not, the respondent promptly appeared and, if unacquainted, presented his card, saying that he was a lawyer, and sometimes asking how much money the prisoner had would say that for a stated consideration he would furnish cash bail at once and attend to the trial of the case when it came...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In re Edwards
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 3, 1928
    ...... constitutional repository, the supreme court of Idaho. This. arm is in no sense of the word a corporation. (In re Bruen,. supra; In re Mills, supra; In re Ward, supra; McVicar v. State Board of Law Examiners, supra; In re Chapelle, supra;. chap. 211, 1923 Sess. Laws, sec. 8; In re Winthrop, . 135 Wash. 135, 237 P. 3.). . . BUDGE,. J. Wm. E. Lee, C. J., Givens, T. Bailey Lee, JJ., and Taylor. concur. TAYLOR, J., Dissenting. . . . OPINION . [266 P. 667] . . [45. Idaho 682] BUDGE, J. . . On or. about June 25, 1926, the ......
  • In re Ades, 978.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • March 19, 1934
    ...rather than good morals" are not grounds for disbarment); Matter of Gray, 184 App. Div. 822, 172 N. Y. S. 648 (censure); In re Winthrop, 135 Wash. 135, 237 P. 3 (criminal cases; suspension); Ex parte Hittson, 15 N. M. 6, 99 P. 689 (criminal case; suspension). Stirring up litigation in perso......
  • In re Disbarment Proceedings
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 23, 1936
    ...those alleged to be legally liable for such accidents and injuries. For this action the lawyer was disbarred. In Re Winthrop (1925) 135 Wash. 135, 237 P. 3, practices very much similar to those involved in the present case likewise met with disbarment. See, also, In re Sims, 97 S.C. 37, 81 ......
  • Chi., M., St. P. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wolf
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 24, 1929
    ...P. Ry. Co. (D. C. Minn.) 298 F. 977;In re Gorsuch, 113 Kan. 380, 382, 214 P. 794;Beck v. Boucher, 114 Wash. 574, 195 P. 996;In re Winthrop, 135 Wash. 135, 237 P. 3;Chreste v. Commonwealth, 178 Ky. 311, 198 S. W. 929;People v. Berezniak, 292 Ill. 305, 127 N. E. 36. See generally 6 C. J. 598,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT