People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Weeber
| Citation | 57 P. 1079,26 Colo. 229 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. COLORADO BAR ASS'N v. WEEBER. |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1899 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS to disbar William J. Weeber. Judgment of disbarment entered.
Lucius W. Hoyt and Colvin E. Reed, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
William J. Weeber, pro se.
The object of this proceeding is to strike from the roll of attorneys in this state the name of respondent, William J. Weeber. The information charges that in the district court of the United States for the district of Colorado the respondent has been tried and convicted of the crime of unlawfully making use of the United States mails. Weeber was sentenced to pay, and has paid, the fine imposed by the court. The answer does not deny the facts set up in the information, but seeks to escape their consequences upon the following grounds: That the statutes of this state do not make the acts charged against him a ground of disbarment; that the conviction was in the federal, and not in the state, court; that, since the conviction, he has been continuously engaged in the practice of his profession, has appeared in a large number of cases, and during that time no charges or complaints have been made against him derogatory to his integrity and standing as a lawyer; that laches exist in this prosecution; and that he is dependent upon his profession for an income to support himself and family. In the brief reliance is had upon section 10 of article 7 of the constitution, which reads as follows: 'No person while confined in any public prison shall be entitled to vote; but every such person who was a qualified elector prior to such imprisonment, and who is released therefrom by virtue of a pardon, or by virtue of having served out his full term of imprisonment, shall, without further action, be invested with all the rights of citizenship, except as otherwise provided in this constitution.' The point made under this section is that the payment by him of the fine and costs is equivalent to a pardon, or to serving out a full term of imprisonment, and that the legal effect of either is to restore the person convicted to all the rights of citizenship, which includes the right to practice his profession of lawyer, the same as before conviction.
Conceding the allegations of facts averred in the answer to be true, no one of them, nor all combined, constitute any defense to the information. Some of them might properly be considered if this were an application to reinstate respondent, but in a proceeding for disbarment they are not a defense. The only proposition that requires any discussion is what effect, if any, payment of the fine has upon the pending proceeding. No authority is cited in support of the reasondent's claim that payment of a fire restores to him the alleged right to practice his profession. If it be conceded that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Richards
...R. S. 1909, secs. 951, 956, 959; R. S. 1929, secs. 11707, 11712; People v. Thomas, 36 Colo. 126; People v. Mead, 29 Colo. 348; People v. Weeber, 26 Colo. 229; In the Matter of an Attorney, 86 N.Y. 563; In re Smith, 73 Kan. 743, 85 P. 586; In re Wellcome, 23 Mont. 213, 58 P. 47; In re Platz,......
-
Beck, Matter of
...eye to the fact that once he had done an act which constituted the offence. U.S. v. Swift (D.C.) 186 F. 1002, 1016; People v. Weeber, 26 Colo. 229, 57 P. 1079, 1080. In other words, while the effect of a pardon is to relieve the offender of the penal consequences of his act, it does not res......
-
People v. Harfmann
...or fail to comply with the high ethical and moral standards which are imposed on all members of the legal profession. People v. Weeber, 26 Colo. 229, 57 P. 1079 (1899); C.R.C.P. 241. In this case, the respondent's conduct not only constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsi......
-
State v. Lewis
...a physician's right to practice has been raised and held of no force in proceedings for disbarment of an attorney. People v. Weeber, 26 Colo. 229, 230, 57 Pac. 1079;People v. Thomas, 36 Colo. 126, 91 Pac. 36, 10 Ann. Cas. 886;In re Thresher, 33 Mont. 441, 84 Pac. 876, 114 Am. St. Rep. 834, ......