People v. Bell

Citation150 Colo. 245,372 P.2d 436
Decision Date11 June 1962
Docket NumberNo. 19891,19891
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, v. John E. BELL, Attorney Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Dep. Atty. Gen., William C. McClearn, of the Colorado Bar, Denver, for the People.

Charles Ginsberg, Denver, for respondent.

McWILLIAMS, Justice.

This is an original proceeding in disbarment against John E. Bell, who hereinafter referred to as the respondent.

By complaint filed with the Grievance Committee of this Court it was alleged that respondent was admitted to the Bar of Colorado by this Court on September 7, 1948, and that since this date he has been, and now is, a member of the Bar of this Court. It was generally averred that the respondent 'has committed acts contrary to the highest standards of honesty, justice and morality'. More specifically he was charged with embezzling and converting to his own use the sum of $16,725.00 lawfully in his possession as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of one Ladnor M. Moore, deceased, whose last will and testament had been duly admitted to probate in the County Court of Cheyenne County, Nebraska on January 29, 1957. The complaint prayed that citation issue requiring respondent to answer the allegations of the complaint and for such further proceedings and disciplinary action as the circumstances of the case might demand.

Citation issued and respondent answered, admitting his admission to the Colorado Bar in 1948 and his appointment as administrator of the estate of Ladnor M. Moore, but denying any wrongdoing on his part. He specifically denied converting to his own use any funds of the Moore estate. On the day the matter was set for hearing before the Grievance Committee, respondent withdrew his answer and admitted all of the allegations in the complaint, and additionally stipulated to the admission of certain documents. Respondent then testified as to the circumstances surrounding the acts complained of, hopeful no doubt that such would prove to be of a mitigating nature.

It developed at the hearing that respondent at the age of three was permanently and severely crippled by polio but that he subsequently overcame the effects of this physical handicap, eventually, graduated from law school and was admitted to the Colorado Bar. Since his admission respondent has practiced in the Fort Morgan-Brush area, is married and the father of four minor children. In explanation of the actions here under consideration respondent testified that he and Ladnor M. Moore had been close personal friends and as such had engaged in several joint business ventures. He freely admitted that he had indeed converted to his own use funds of the Moore estate in the amount of $16,725.00, but asserted that he regarded such to be more in the nature of a 'loan', than an act of embezzlement. The conversions took place over a period of several years and the illgotten gains from these acts of criminality were used to pay respondent's living expenses, remodelling of his home, and the like. Respondent expressed his intention to make complete restitution and in this regard said he had already repaid some...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Committee on Legal Ethics of the West Virginia State Bar v. Six, 18971
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1989
    ...involve moral turpitude as a matter of law. See In Re Lyons, 15 Cal.3d 322, 124 Cal.Rptr. 171, 540 P.2d 11 (1975); People v. Bell, 150 Colo. 245, 372 P.2d 436 (1962); In Re Patt, 81 Ill.2d 447, 43 Ill.Dec. 737, 410 N.E.2d 870 (1980); In Re Shumate, 382 S.W.2d 405 (Ky.1964); In Re Sutton, 21......
  • Pappas, Matter of
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1988
    ...sanctions imposed in cases factually similar to respondent's and to consider the ABA standards cited above. People v. Bell, 150 Colo. 245, 247, 372 P.2d 436, 438 (1962); Standards, supra, § 1.3 (one of purposes of these standards is to promote "consistency in the imposition of disciplinary ......
  • People v. Gibbons
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • June 7, 1965
    ...morality, and that he was not and is not in fact guilty of any of the charges made in the formal complaint. In the case of People v. Bell, 150 Colo. 245, 372 P.2d 436, this court '* * * that disciplinary action to be taken in a given case must in the final analysis depend upon the facts and......

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