People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 02 February 1914
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. COLORADO BAR ASS'N v. TAYLOR.

138 P. 762

56 Colo. 441

PEOPLE ex rel. COLORADO BAR ASS'N v. TAYLOR.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc

February 2, 1914

Original proceeding by the People, on relation of the Colorado Bar Association, against George Frederick Taylor. Judgment for petitioner on pleadings.

Hugh McLean, of Denver, for petitioner.

O. N Hilton, of Denver, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Information was filed against respondent, alleging that he was advertising and holding himself out to the public as an attorney, when as a matter of fact he was not licensed to practice law in this state, and asking that he be adjudged guilty of contempt as provided in section 251 Revised Statutes of 1908. This section provides in substance that any person who shall advertise, represent, or hold himself out in any manner as an attorney, attorney at law, or counselor at law, without having a license from the Supreme Court of this state to practice law, shall be deemed guilty of contempt. The information charged that Taylor caused his name to be inserted in the city directory of the city of Denver and in the directory of the Colorado Telephone Company as a lawyer, and that the words 'George F. Taylor Lawyer,' appeared on his business cards and the door of his office, at 421 Charles Bldg., Denver, Colo. The respondent answered, admitting that he had not been licensed by this court to practice law, and that he had advertised as being a lawyer, substantially as set out in the information. Petitioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, adjudging him guilty of contempt, and that he be punished accordingly.

Respondent urges three reasons in his answer and brief why he should not be adjudged guilty: (1) That the statute does not apply to him, for the reason that he has only advertised as a 'lawyer,' and that the statute only embraces those who advertise, represent, or hold themselves out as an attorney, attorney at law, or counselor at law. (2) That the statute does not inhibit the practice of law in courts not of record by persons not licensed, and that by statute any person may practice in the county court while sitting for probate business, and, having the right to practice in such courts, he has not violated the statute by advertising himself as a lawyer. (3) That the statute is inoperative unconstitutional, and void, because it attempts to define and punish as contempt an act which cannot be construed, or by statute made, a contempt of court.

Webster defines lawyer as: 'One versed in the law, or a practitioner of law; one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients, or to advise as to the prosecution or defense of lawsuits, or as to legal rights and obligations and other matters. It is a general term comprehending attorneys, counselors, solicitors, barristers, sergeants, and advocates.'

It thus appears that 'lawyer' and 'attorney' are synonymous, and hence any one advertising himself as a lawyer holds himself out to be an attorney, attorney at law, or counselor at law.

The second proposition relied upon by respondent is in no sense...