Mason, In re
Decision Date | 20 May 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 38932,38932 |
Parties | In re Louis L. MASON, Attorney, Respondent. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
David J. A. Hayes, Jr., Springfield, and E. Harold Wineland, Flora, for Commissioners.
Louis L. Mason, pro se.
The Board of Governors of the Illinois State Bar Association, acting as commissioners of this court under Rule 59, filed a report recommending that the respondent, Louis L. Mason, be disbarred and his name stricken from the rolls of attorneys of this court. Respondent filed exceptions to the report and the cause is now before us.
Counts I, II and III of the complaint involve respondent's conduct in filing a civil action against Judge Rodney A. Scott and thirteen other defendants seeking damages in the total amount of $4,300,000. Count V contains charges against respondent specifying various disrespectful acts of respondent in the course of trying cases from January, 1956 to July, 1962. Count IV was dismissed.
After a hearing the hearing division panel found that the evidence supported the charges contained in counts I, II, III and V, and recommended disbarment. On review the commissioners sustained objections as to the findings on count V, but approved the report and recommendations of the hearing division panel as to counts I, II and III.
At the hearing five witnesses testified in support of the charges, and respondent alone testified in his own defense.
It appears from the record that respondent conducted arguments for the week prior to Friday, February 3, 1961, before Judge Scott in a criminal case entitled People v. Sharp. That Friday evening respondent returned to his home in Decatur where he had a dispute with his mother-in-law, Mrs. Harpstrite. That evening, upon her complaint, a warrant was issued for the arrest of the respondent. The following morning, while in custody on that warrant, respondent was served with notice of hearing on a mental illness petition verified by Mrs. Harpstrite. Dr. V. T. Turley was appointed an examining physician and filed his written report showing respondent to be in need of mental treatment. Upon examination of the petition and physician's report, Judge Scott, sitting in interchange at the request of acting County Judge William C. Calvin, on Saturday, February 4, 1961, ordered that respondent be restrained for the protection of himself and others, pending a hearing on the petition the following Monday. This was the last act of Judge Scott relating to respondent.
After Monday, February 6, 1961, the petition was continued from time to time until on February 9, when the original order of Judge Scott was modified by joint motion of the State's Attorney and attorney for respondent. The modification permitted respondent to be removed to a veterans' administration hospital for treatment, and thereafter the cause was dismissed.
Approximately two years later respondent filed a civil suit in Macon County against fourteen defendants. The first count was directed against Judge Scott and in its material portions precisely as it appears in the record alleged as follows:
'WHEREFORE, this plaintiff prays judgment against said defendant in the sum of not less than $250,000.00 and costs and demands a trial by jury of these issues.'
The suit was subsequently dismissed as to all defendants upon motion and no appeal has been taken.
At the hearing Glen R. Cooper, a newspaper reporter for a Decatur newspaper, testified that the respondent told him prior to the filing of the suit on February 1, 1963, that 'I am going to file a suit that's going to shake hell out of the County.' Thereafter respondent also told Cooper that 'I am going to nail these officials and that damn Judge.' He also told Cooper that he was naming as defendant 'that god-damn Scott.' Cooper also testified that on the day the suit was filed respondent told Cooper, 'You haven't treated me right in publicity and this is one time I want publicity * * * I want the biggest headline you've got on this suit * * * Now don't forget I want headlines...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nichols v. Fahrenkamp
...jurisdiction, as this Court recognized when it adopted the doctrine, in Bradley v. Fisher , 13 Wall. 335 (1872)"); In re Mason , 33 Ill. 2d 53, 57, 210 N.E.2d 203 (1965) ; In re McGarry , 380 Ill. 359, 365-66, 44 N.E.2d 7 (1942) ; People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Standidge , 333 Ill. 361......
-
People ex rel. Kunce v. Hogan
...they enjoy immunity from civil suits based upon their judicial actions. Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 20 L.Ed. 646; In re Mason, 33 Ill.2d 53, 210 N.E.2d 203; People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Standidge, 333 Ill. 361, 164 N.E. We need not be concerned with whether attorney Hogan filed ......
-
Jafree, In re
... ... He charged that the judges had "wantonly" made false findings in reaching their decision. Although this was the only instance of misconduct, this court suspended the attorney from the practice of law for six months ... [93 Ill.2d 461] In In re Mason (1965), 33 Ill.2d 53, 210 N.E.2d 203, an attorney instituted a suit against a judge who "restrained" him for one weekend pending a hearing on a mental illness petition. The attorney requested a reporter to print a story concerning the suit. This court found that the lawsuit was filed for the ... ...
- People v. Nelson