In re Wourms

• Decision Date: 04 February 1918
• Citation: 31 Idaho 291,170 P. 919
• Parties: In Re JOHN H. WOURMS
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

170 P. 919

31 Idaho 291

In Re JOHN H. WOURMS

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 4, 1918

ATTORNEY AT LAW-DISBARMENT.

A disbarment proceeding is in no sense a criminal action, nor is its purpose the punishment of the attorney. It is intended to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice from the misconduct of those who have found their way into the legal profession and who are unfit to perform the important duties which devolve upon an attorney at law.

[As to causes and proceedings for disbarment of attorneys, see notes in 95 Am.Dec. 333; 45 Am.St. 71]

PROCEEDING to disbar attorney.

I. N Smith, appearing for the Attorney, filed no brief.

T. A Walters, Atty. Genl., and J. P. Pope, Asst., appearing by request of the Court.

The real question for determination in disbarment proceedings is whether or not the attorney is a fit person to be longer allowed the privileges of being an attorney. (6 C. J. 581 and note.)

Betraying the confidence of a client is sufficient ground for disbarment. (6 C. J. 588, and many cases cited.)

MORGAN, J. Budge, C. J., and Rice, J., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, J.

Certain facts were brought to the attention of this court in case of Davenport et al. v. Burke, 30 Idaho 599, 167 P. 481, which prompted the issuance of an order directing John H. Wourms to appear and show cause why he should not be disbarred because of professional misconduct and violation of his oath and duties as an attorney, licensed to practice in the courts of Idaho.

Most of the facts upon which the order was based are set out in the opinion in the case above referred to and will not be repeated here. Briefly, the substance of the matter which Wourms was called upon to answer is that he procured himself to be employed by Patrick Burke, as his attorney, to adjust differences which had arisen between the latter and the owners of certain mining claims, upon which he held an option to purchase, and defrauded and misled him into allowing his rights to be forfeited and then, in hostility to him, purchased the property as agent and attorney for the Consolidated Interstate-Callahan Mining Company. In a supplemental order Wourms was directed to make answer to the charge that upon the trial of the case of Davenport v. Burke, supra, wherein the alleged fraud was in issue, he, knowing the time and place of the trial, purposely absented himself therefrom and from the state, to avoid being called as a witness thereat.

Wourms filed answers to these orders in which he denied the material allegations therein contained. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, one of the judges of the seventh judicial district, was appointed as referee to take testimony upon the issues so framed; a hearing was had, oral and documentary evidence was introduced, and the referee made findings of fact, from which, and from an examination of the record, it appears that the charges are fully sustained by the proof.

This is in no sense a criminal action. In disbarment proceedings courts are without jurisdiction to punish the accused attorney, however reprehensible his conduct may have been. The purpose of such proceedings is to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice from the misconduct of persons who...