Metzger v. O'Donoghue

• Decision Date: 03 April 1923
• Docket Number: 3861.
• Parties: METZGER v. O'DONOGHUE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

288 F. 461

METZGER v. O'DONOGHUE et al.

No. 3861.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

April 3, 1923

Submitted February 12, 1923.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Victor H. Wallace, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Clarence R. Wilson and Roger Whiteford, both of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Before SMYTH, Chief Justice, ROBB, Associate Justice, and BARBER Judge of the United States Court of Customs Appeals.

SMYTH Chief Justice.

The Committee on Grievances of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia investigated a complaint against Percy Metzger, a member of the bar of that court, and reported that the committee deemed the facts as ascertained by them to be sufficient to support the complaint, and recommended that Metzger be called upon to answer. He was duly notified, and he answered. The matter was tried by the court in general term; the chief justice and two associate justices sitting. A great deal of testimony was taken. The court, one justice dissenting, found Metzger guilty, and ordered that he be disbarred and his name stricken from the rolls. In due time he lodged an appeal in this court. Some time afterwards he died. Victor H. Wallace and Frank Stetson, who were appointed collectors of his estate pending the probate of his will move that the case be revived in their names.

No authorities are cited in support of the motion. Section 235 of the Code provides that 'On the death of any person in whose favor or against whom a right of action may have accrued for any cause except an injury to the person or to the reputation, said right of action shall survive in favor of or against the legal representatives of the deceased; but no right of action for an injury to the person, except as provided in chapter forty-five of this Code, or to the reputation, shall so survive.'

Chapter 45 relates to actions provided for by Lord Campbell's Act, and is immaterial here.

It may well be doubted whether mere collectors are legal representatives of the deceased within the meaning of the section. But, assuming that they are, and assuming, further without deciding, that this is an action, is it one which survives? If it be, it must be one which survives 'in favor of or against the legal representative of the deceased ' But there is nothing in it which could be asserted either in favor of or against his legal representative. In exercising summary jurisdiction over attorneys through disbarment proceedings, courts have in view two leading objects: First, to compel the attorney to deal frankly and honestly with his clients (Strong v. Mundy, 52 N.J.Eq. 833, 31 A. 611); and, second, to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be trusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney. Ex parte Brounsall, Cowp. 829; Stephens v. Hill, 10 M. & W. 28. In the attainment of these objects the idea of punishment has no appropriate place. Re Lentz, 65 N.J.Law, 134, 138, 46 A. 761, 50 L.R.A. 415; 6 C.J. 581. To the same effect is In re Wall, 107 U.S. 265, 2 Sup.Ct. 569, 27 L.Ed. 552. These objects are accomplished by withdrawing from the accused the status of an attorney. When death came, it severed forever Metzger's connection with the bar, and...