Lane, In re

• Decision Date: 25 May 1956
• Citation: 291 S.W.2d 19
• Parties: In re Charles E. LANE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Page 19

291 S.W.2d 19

In re Charles E. LANE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 25, 1956.

Edwin O. Davis, Louisville, for respondent.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., and John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Bar Commissioners.

PER CURIAM.

The Louisville Bar Association filed a complant against Charles L. Lane, charging him with making two false statements under oath in December 1949, on his application for admission to law school and to theKentucky State Bar Association when and if he obtained his law degree and passed the state bar examination. The false statements were that he had never been adefendant in a civil or criminal proceeding, and that he had been a resident of Louisville from 1945 to 1949. He passed his state bar examination in 1952, was admitted to the bar and has been practicing in Louisville since that date.

Mr. Lane's reponse admits both statements were false; that he had been convicted of a felony in 1947, served a year in federal prison and was released in April 1948. Theresponse set out a rather pathetic situation relating to his conviction. Upon a hearing, the Trial Committee of theState Board of Bar Commissioners found Lane had obtained his license 'upon a fraudulent foundation' and recommended that his license 'be revoked and canceled.' TheBoard followed the Trial Committee and recommended to this Court that Lane's license be revoked. Upon a rule issued by this Court against Mr. Lane, he made the same response here as he did before the Trial Committee.

Tespondent is now 31 years of age and the facts leading him into trouble, as shown in his response, are these: He married quite young and attempted to wiork his way through medical school with theaid of his 'G.I. Bill of Rights.' His wife was stricken with tuberculosis and it was necessary for him to put her in a sanitiorium. Although though he worked nights in a drug store in Kansas, he was unable to supply Mrs. American Express Money Checks which did not belong to him. By great sacrifice his family made restitution and the State charges against him were dismissed. Lane and his wife returned to Kentucky and the federal government prosecuted him. Upon a plea of guilty, he served a year in federal prison in Ashland for interstate transportation of stolen securities. Upon being released from prison, he became a good citizen, held several positions of trust and entered theJefferson School of Law in 1949. To protect himself from his past, Mr. Lane made the two false statements on his application for admission to the bar. He got his law degree and passed thestate bar examination in 1952, ad from therecord has led an exemplary life since leaving prison andhas been successful in his profession.

Mr. Lane states his wife's illness affected her emotionally and they had marital difficulties resulting in her obtaining a divorce, which hedidnot contest. After they were divorced, Mrs. Lane made demands upon him for money under threats that she would expose his past. Lane met her demands as long as possible, but in time they reached such proportions that he could not comply therewith, and she reported to the Louisville Bar Association that Lane had been convicted of a felony and had made false answers on his application for admission to the bar.

It is frankly admitted by Mr. Lane that he did wrong in making th efalse statements in his application, but he states he made them only to protect his future from a criminal past and not with a view to perpetrate a fraud. He argues he did not secure his license through a fraudulent misrepresentation, but that thefalse statements only related to his persona character--then good--which he did not want sullied by the one false step in his youth.

While we do not condone his action in swearing falsely about his past, we can see a distinction between his false statements and false statements made whic bear directly on andperpetrate an actual fraud in obtaining a license. We will attempt to illustrate the difference by reference to the three cases relied on in the brief of the Board. In re Taylor, 309 Ky. 388, 217 S.W.2d 954; In re Price, 226 App.Div. 460, 235 N.Y.S. 601; In re Kristeller, 154 App.Div. 556, 139 N.Y.S. 64.

Louis C. Taylor in obtaining his Kentucky license represented he was a duly licensed attorney in Illinois. It was later discovered that when he made such representation Taylor had been permanently disbarred by the Supreme Court of Illinois. Thus he secured his license directly by fraud and there was no foundation upon which this Court could issue him a valid license, and we so held. In re Taylor, 309 Ky. 388, 217 S.W.2d 954. Here, lane's license was not obtained through fraud although he did make false statements as to his past character to enable him to take the state...