People ex rel. Thomas v. Berry

• Decision Date: 07 March 1892
• Citation: People ex rel. Thomas v. Berry, 29 P. 904, 17 Colo. 322 (Colo. 1892)
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. THOMAS v. BERRY et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

29 P. 904

17 Colo. 322

PEOPLE ex rel. THOMAS v. BERRY et al.

Supreme Court of Colorado

March 7, 1892

Original disbarment proceedings against Samuel P. Berry and others attorneys, on the relation of the T. H. Thomas. Application denied.

HELM J.

Relator is an attorney at law. He presents a petition and prays the entry of a rule requiring respondents to show cause why their names should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys practicing before this and the other state courts. The petition recites that, in a certain action pending before the district court of Arapahoe county, respondents, as attorneys for defendant, filed an answer containing, among other things, impertinent and scandalous allegations maliciously and falsely charging relator, who was plaintiff in that action, with divers disgraceful, felonious, and shocking acts. The petition also avers that on motion the court below struck out of the answer in question the objectionable matter, and that an action for damages against respondents would be futile. It does not aver that the district court refused to entertain contempt proceedings against respondents for the alleged misconduct, nor does it allege that the district court was asked to entertain such proceedings. It is needless to say that the revocation of an attorney's license to practice law is a severe penalty; a penalty that should only be imposed for gross professional malconduct. As a rule, where there is any other adequate method of punishing the offense committed, and preserving the honor and purity of the legal profession, disbarment should not be favored. While for some kinds of misbehavior, showing individuals unworthy to hold a lawyer's license, no other remedy save this exists, it frequently happens that the unprofessional act constitutes likewise a contempt of court that is to say, it may be such an act as, under established legal principles, might properly subject the offender either to punishment for a contempt of court or to disbarment. Among the acts of attorneys which constitute contempts of court is that of placing written pleadings that contain scandalous matter upon the files. Every attorney knows that the object of such pleadings is to present in the clearest and most concise language--language free from intemperance and impurity--the precise matters constituting the issue to be tried; and every attorney also knows that he has no right to introduce into a pleading unnecessary allegations, intended to humiliate, ridicule, or disgrace opposing parties or counsel or the court. The 'privilege' which under proper circumstances protects the attorney against an action for libel does not necessarily control in contempt proceedings. This privilege is not, and it never has been, a cloak for the dishonor of judicial proceedings and the disgrace of judicial records by means of scandalous matter in pleadings. The term 'scandalous' is here employed with its strict legal meaning, viz.: The 'allegation of anything which is unbecoming the dignity of the court to hear, or is contrary to good manners, or which charges some person with a crime not necessary to be shown in the cause; to which may be added that any unnecessary allegation bearing cruelly upon the moral character of an individual is...