Louisville Bar Ass'n v. Mazin

• Decision Date: 20 February 1940
• Parties: Louisville Bar Ass'n v. Mazin.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

282 Ky. 743

Louisville Bar Ass'n v. Mazin.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 20, 1940.

1. Attorney and Client. — The statutes prohibiting person convicted of treason or felony from practicing law, and authorizing suspension of attorney neglecting or refusing to pay over money collected for client, are not exclusive, but only supplementary and cumulative, and do not prevent disbarment or suspension of attorneys for other unprofessional conduct (Ky. Stats., secs. 97, 104).

2. Attorney and Client. — Apart from any statute, an attorney may be suspended or disbarred for unprofessional conduct, though not criminal in character.

3. Attorney and Client. — Generally, ambulance chasing or solicitation of business through professional runners and solicitors is ground for suspension or disbarment of attorney.

4. Attorney and Client. — In proceeding to disbar attorney, evidence that certain person solicited employment of respondent in certain cases and secured one client's signature to contract for such employment on respondent's printed form, and that respondent voluntarily admitted during investigation by bar association's investigating committee that he had been guilty of ambulance chasing, justified recommendation of board of commissioners of state bar association that respondent be suspended from practice of law for three months and publicly reprimanded for unprofessional conduct.

In Court of Appeals.

Hubert Meredith, Attorney General, for complainant.

OPINION BY CREAL, COMMISSIONER.

Confirming findings of Board of Commissioners of State Bar Association.

The Board of Commissioners of the Kentucky State Bar Association have found Benjamin Mazin, a member of the Jefferson county bar, guilty of unprofessional conduct and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of three months and publicly reprimanded. The proceeding is before us on the report and recommendation of the Board of Commissioners and the record on hearing had before the board on the complaint against the respondent.

The complaint against the respondent, as amended, charged in substance that he through paid runners and solicitors employed by him had solicited employment of himself as attorney for parties in a number of designated cases and in this solicitation and in order to secure employment had made false statements pertaining to himself and others. The Board of Commissioners sustained complaints as to count 3, known as the Hockenjos complaint, and count 4, known as the Hartman complaint, but dismissed all other counts.

Without going into detail it is sufficient to say that there is evidence that one Harris solicited employment of respondent in the Hockenjos and Hartman cases and secured the signature of one of them to a contract for such employment on a printed form of respondent. A member of the investigating committee of the bar association testified that during the progress of their investigation respecting ambulance chasing and professional runners in Louisville, respondent voluntarily admitted that he...