Meeker, In re

• Decision Date: 16 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 7726,7726
• Citation: 76 N.M. 354,1966 NMSC 96,414 P.2d 862
• Parties: In the Matter of Charles A. MEEKER, Attorney at Law.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 862

414 P.2d 862

76 N.M. 354

In the Matter of Charles A. MEEKER, Attorney at Law.

No. 7726.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

May 16, 1966.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1966.

Robert S. Skinner, Raton, for Board of Bar Commissioners.

Charles A. Meeker, Albuquerque, pro se.

CASWELL S. NEAL, District Judge.

An original complaint was filed before the Board of Bar Commissioners by Robert S. Skinner, Chairman of the Committee on Ethics, Grievances and Discipline, against Charles A. Meeker, a member of the Bar of this state. The bases for the complaints set forth therein are:

(1) By reason of the language employed in the briefs in the case of Meeker v. Walraven, 72 N.M. 107, 380 P.2d 845, and in Meeker v. Walraven, 375 U.S. 829, 84 S.Ct. 73, 11 L.Ed.2d 60; rehearing denied, 375 U.S. 917, 84 S.Ct. 191, 11 L.Ed.2d 157, the said Charles A. Meeker has violated the oath which he took on being admitted to the State Bar of New Mexico.

(2) That the language employed in briefs in the above mentioned cases constitutes a violation of Canons 15 and 22 of the Cannons of Ethics of the Bar.

(3) That the language employed by the said Charles Meeker in the briefs in the above referenced cases was abusive and offensive against the District Court Judges and Courts of the State of New Mexico, and constitutes a violation of Canon 1 of the Canons of Ethics of the Bar.

After due notice to Mr. Meeker, a hearing was held before the Board of Bar Commissioners of the State of New Mexico on September 18, 1964. The transcript of record before the Commission, consisting of 339 pages, is a part of the record herein.

Under Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, the Commissioners hear the grievance and report to the Supreme Court their findings, conclusions and recommendations.

After the hearing, the Commissioners, as referees of the Court, made the following findings of fact:

'1. That proper service of the Complaint has been made upon the Respondent, and the Respondent is properly before the Commission.

2. That Respondent is a duly admitted member of the State Bar of New Mexico and took the oath of admission required by the Rules of the Supreme Court of New Mexico.

3. That in briefs filed in the case of Meeker v. Walraven in the Supreme Court of New Mexico, 72 N.M. 107, 380 P.2d 845, and in the Supreme Court of the United States in Cause No. 298 of the October 1963 Term of said Court (375 U.S. 829, 11 L.Ed.2d 60, 84 S.Ct. 73; rehearing denied, 375 U.S. 917, 11 L.Ed.2d 157, 84 S.Ct. 191), the Respondent employed scandalous, misleading, reckless, abusive, disrespectful and offensive language directed to the Courts, parties and attorneys of New Mexico.

4. That in the District Court proceeding commenced in 1960 the Respondent embarked upon the course of conduct described in Finding No. 3 above; that in the opinion handed down by the Supreme Court of New Mexico in the case described in Finding No. 3 above, which was filed on April 8, 1963 the Respondent was clearly warned against such practices and to comport himself according to the standards of the legal profession. That despite such warning the Respondent continued the same course of conduct in his Petition for Rehearing before the Supreme Court of New Mexico, and in his Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Petition for Rehearing filed in the Supreme Court of the United States in the October 1963 Term.

5. Throughout the hearing held before these Referees on September 18, 1964, the Respondent showed no feeling of remorse or intention to change such course of conduct.'

The following conclusions of law were reached by the Commissioners:

'1. That the Referees have proper jurisdiction of the Respondent and of the charges contained in the Complaint.

2. That the language employed by the Respondnent in said briefs violated Canons 1, 15 and 22 of the Canons of Ethics of the State Bar of New Mexico and violated the oath taken by Respondent upon his admission to the State Bar of New Mexico.

3. That the course of conduct followed by the Respondent as referred to in the foregoing Findings of Fact displays a reckless and intemperate disregard of the obligations of an attorney.

4. That the course of conduct of the Respondent shows an inherent lack of capacity for restraint which demonstrates his unfitness to be a member of the Bar.

5. That the facts found by the Referees have been established and are supported by clear and convincing evidence.'

The Commissioners recommended that Respondent be disbarred.

The oath of an attorney is a solemn and sacred obligation, not to be lightly dealt with or disregarded. It is as follows:

'I, _ _, do solemnly swear:

I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Mexico;

I will maintain the respect due to Courts of Justice and judicial officers;

I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding which shall appear to me to be unjust, nor any defense except such as I believe to be honestly debatable under the law of the land;

I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never aseek to misled the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law; inviolate the secrets of my client, inviolate the secrets of may client, and will accept no compensation in connection with his business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;

I will abstain from all offensive personality, and advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which I am charged;

I will never reject from any consideration personal to myself the cause of the defenseless or oppressed, or delay any man's cause for lucre or malice.

SO HELP ME GOD.'

The canons of professional ethics must be enforced by the Courts and must be respected by members of the Bar if we are to maintain public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the administration of justice. Canon No. 1 is as follows:

'1. The Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts.

It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of the Bar against unjust criticism and clamor. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint of a judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities. In such cases, but not otherwise, such charges should be encouraged and the person making them should be protected.'

Canon No. 15 is, in part, as follows:

'15. How Far a Lawyer May Go in Supporting a Client's Cause.

Nothing operates more certainly to create or to foster popular prejudice against lawyers as a class, and to deprive the profession of that full measure of public esteem and confidence which belongs to the proper discharge of its duties than does the false claim, often set up by the unscrupulous in defense of questionable transactions, that it is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever may enable him to succeed in winning his client's cause.

It is improper for a lawyer to assert in argument his personal belief in his client's innocence or in the justice of his cause.'

Canon No. 22 is as follows:

'22. Candor and Fairness.

The conduct of the lawyer before the Court and with other lawyers should be characterized by candor and fairness.

It is not candid or fair for the lawyer knowingly to misquote the contents of a paper, the testimony of a witness, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the language of a decision or a textbook; or with knowledge of its invalidity, to cite as authority a decision that has been overruled, or a statute that has been repealed; or in argument to assert as a fact that which has not been proved, or in those jurisdictions where a side has the opening and closing arguments to mislead his opponent by concealing or withholding positions in his opening agrument upon which his side then intends to rely.

It is unprofessional and dishonorable to deal other than candidly with the facts in taking the statements of witnesses, in drawing affidavits and other documents, and in the presentation of causes.

A lawyer should not offer evidence which he knows the Court should reject, in order to get the same before the jury by argument for its admissibility, nor should he address to the Judge arguments upon any point not properly calling for determination by him. Neither should he introduce into an argument, addressed to the court, remarks or statements intended to influence the jury or bystanders.

These and all kindred practices are unprofessional and unworthy of an officer of the law charged, as is the lawyer, with the duty of aiding in the administration of justice.'

The intemperance of the language used by Mr. Meeker in his briefs filed in the state court, in the view of the author of the opinion in Meeker v. Walraven, 72 N.M. 107, 380 P.2d 845, has been pointed out and a warning was issued to Mr. Meeker against a repetition of this reprehensible conduct. After this warning, the Petitioner filed a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 298, October 1963 Term. In this petition, Mr. Meeker stated as reasons for the granting of the writ, among other things, the following:

'It is common practice in lower appellate courts to ignore unquestionable facts to make opinions rendered fit the law quoted rather than the case tried and reviewed. This case is an example of such widespread customs. The final result is always a denial of justice, and the overcoming of all Constitutional guarantees by caprice and discretionary violations. * * *'

He further stated that:

'Attorneys, because of unwarranted protection and shelter given by judges in their desire to maintain the factual farce that no...