People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Humbert, 12423.

Citation282 P. 263,86 Colo. 426
Decision Date12 November 1929
Docket Number12423.
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. COLORADO BAR ASS'N v. HUMBERT.
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1929.

Petition by the People, on the relation of the Colorado Bar Association, against George J. Humbert. Respondent was disbarred as attorney at law, and the Attorney General filed an information charging contempt for violation of a statute. Respondent answered, and petitioner moves for judgment on the pleadings.

Motion sustained, and respondent held guilty of contempt.

Robert E. Winbourn, Atty. Gen., and Charles Roach, Deputy Atty Gen., for petitioner.

George J. Humbert and Rees D. Rees, both of Denver, for respondent.

BURKE J.

Respondent formerly an attorney of this court, was disbarred May 20, 1920. 69 Colo. 188, 194 P. 612. For an alleged violation of the statute in such case made and provided, the Attorney General files herein his information charging contempt. Respondent answers, and petitioner moves for judgment on the pleadings. The cause is now before us on that motion.

Section 6017, C. L. 1921, provides: 'That any person who shall without having a license from the supreme Court of this state so to do, advertise, represent or hold himself out in any manner as an attorney, attorney at law, or counselor at law, * * * shall be deemed guilty of contempt of the supreme court of this state * * * and shall be punished therefor according to law.'

It is doubtful if this adds anything to prior law. In the absence of statute, it would seem clear that one who falsely represented himself as an officer of this court thereby committed a contempt of the court.

The admitted facts before us are: That respondent was a duly licensed attorney at law; that he was disbarred as above stated; that since said date he has had no license as provided by said statute; that for seven years last past his name and office address have appeared in each issue of the Denver directory, the Colorado directory, and the Denver telephone directory; that in the two former he was designated as 'lawyer' and in the latter as 'atty.,' which was intended to and did mean, and was understood to mean, attorney at law; that in the classified list of each of said directories his name and office address also appeared under the heading 'Lawyers'; that said directories have a wide general circulation; and that in April, 1922 petitioner wrote respondent calling attention to these facts, advising him that this was a violation of the statute, and warning him that a continuance of such 'holding out' would result in an action in contempt. Respondent neither denies receipt of said letter nor knowledge of said advertisements. He does deny taking any affirmative action to bring about the latter, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Schumacher
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1974
    ...and by the designation after his name in the telephone directory as 'attorney." The Colorado Supreme Court, in People v. Humbert, 86 Colo. 426, 282 P. 263 (1929), found a disbarred attorney who had allowed his name to continue in print in local legal and telephone directories with the desig......
  • State ex rel., Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. Samara, 2830
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1986
    ...rel. Patton, Atty. Gen v. Marron, 22 N.M. 632, 167 P. 9 (1917); In re Phillips, 64 Mont. 492, 210 P. 89 (Mont.1922); People v. Humbert, 86 Colo. 426, 282 P. 263 (Colo.1929); State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar v. Butterfield, 172 Neb. 645, 111 N.W.2d 543 (1961); In re Hawkins, 81 Wash.2d 504, ......
  • Page, In re, 43162
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1953
    ...24 L.R.A.,N.S., 750; State ex rel. Patton, Atty. Gen. v. Marron, 22 N.M. 632, 167 P. 9, L.R.A.1918B, 217; People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Humbert, 86 Colo. 426, 282 P. 263; 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, Sec. 40, page 814; 5 Am.Jur., Attorneys at Law, Sec. 299, p. 442. The question is ......
  • In re Boyer
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • November 1, 1999
    ...circumstances, we agree with the PDJ that a period of imprisonment is not warranted. But see People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Humbert, 86 Colo. 426, 427-28, 282 P. 263, 263-64 (1929) (finding that lawyer who allowed his name to continue to appear as an attorney in the city and state dir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT