People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. ======, Attorney at Law, 13070.

• Decision Date: 21 March 1932
• Docket Number: 13070.
• Citation: 90 Colo. 440,9 P.2d 611
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. COLORADO BAR ASS'N v. _____, Attorney at Law.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

9 P.2d 611

90 Colo. 440

PEOPLE ex rel. COLORADO BAR ASS'N v. _____, Attorney at Law.

No. 13070.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

March 21, 1932

Original disbarment proceeding by the People of the State of Colorado on the relation of the Colorado Bar Association, against _____, attorney at law.

Recommendation of Committee on Grievances approved, and respondent reprimanded.

Respondent pro se.

BURKE J.

A complaint against respondent (hereinafter referred to as B) was filed with the Committee on Grievances of the Colorado Bar Association, containing two charges of unprofessional conduct. He answered admitting, in substance the facts alleged, but denying wrongful intent, challenging the correctness of the conclusions and presenting matters in mitigation. After a full hearing the committee made its report finding B guilty of reprehensibel conduct in both instances and recommending his private reprimand. Thereupon he was heard as provided by our rules, and elected to abide by the action of the committee.

It is now therefore ordered that this cause be docketed in this court, that the report of the committee be sealed and so remain in the files of the clerk's office until otherwise directed, that all remaining papers be returned to the files of the committee, and that, for reasons hereinafter appearing, B's true name be omitted from the court records and published reports.

1. The first charge against B is the collection of money from the county on fictitious claims. B was deputy district attorney. He and C, an attorney in private practice, officed together. D did their stenographic work, both private and official, and each paid one-half her salary. She signed claims in blank. B filled them in for the full salary, approved them in his official capacity, secured a county official to add thereto the verification of D, filed the claims against the county received in payment warrants issued to D, indorsed these with the names of D and himself, and deposited them to his own account. His defense was that other counties in the district allowed such deputies the full amount thus collected as stenographic salary and that his own formerly had; that he was entitled under the law to his other official office expenses; that the proportion of these claims above one-half of D's salary was applied to such expenses; and that this method of claiming and collecting deputy district attorney's general office expense had the approval of custom. This alleged custom is in doubt and certain of B's claims for general office expense are in evidence. Hence on the admitted facts his conduct in indefensible. His unitemized office expense, if there was any, could scarcely have amounted, month by month, to exactly one-half of D's salary. He made the records, open to the public and entitled to be relied upon, tell a false tale, irrespective of results. Despite other alleged official acquiescence, he should, as a lawyer, have known better and should have taken a straight course, not a crooked one. ...