People v. Howard
| Decision Date | 21 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19131,19131 |
| Citation | 147 Colo. 501,364 P.2d 380 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, v. H. Gordon HOWARD, Attorney Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard A. Zarlengo, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.
H. Gordon Howard, pro se.
Respondent H. Gordon Howard was licensed to practice law in Colorado on September 26, 1938. On July 9, 1959, the Attorney General filed a formal complaint against Howard alleging facts which if proved would justify his disbarment. On August 3, 1959, a hearing was held before this court on a citation directed to respondent to show cause why his license to practice law should not be suspended pending determination of the complaint. As a result of that hearing he was suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court. People v. Howard, 140 Colo. 151, 342 P.2d 635. The suspension has not been lifted and the matter is now before the court for final determination upon the report and recommendation for disbarment of the Grievance Committee of the Court.
Two charges, of the original four filed, were considered by the Committee and now by the Court as a basis for this disciplinary proceeding. They are:
1. The alleged obtaining of a warranty deed to real estate in La Salle County, Illinois, from one Mary Steinhart, a then aged, partially blind woman, by means of fraud and deceit without consideration. We note that Mrs. Steinhart was deceased by the time the complaint was filed; and
2. The alleged obtaining of $1,000.00 in cash and a $250.00 cognovit note payable to respondent's wife from Mary E. Hannum, an aged woman, by imposition, fraud and deceit and without compensation. We note that Mrs. Hannum was adjudicated mentally incompetent about the time the complaint was filed against respondent.
Suffice it to say here that the charges in question were sufficiently established, over respondent's denials, his own testimony and that of his witnesses as well as by the records in two civil actions against respondent in this Court, Howard v. International Trust Company, 139 Colo. 314, 338 P.2d 689, and Howard v. Hester, 139 Colo. 255, 338 P.2d 106.
Respondent particularly objects to the consideration of the records in the civil cases referred to, contending for application of the general rule that such records are not admissible because of lack of privity of the parties. He ignores the exception to this rule which is to the contrary in the case of disciplinary proceedings against an attorney. See Werner v. State Bar, 24 Cal.2d 611, 150 P.2d 892; Louisiana State Bar Association v. Sackett, 231 La. 655, 92 So.2d 571; Armitage v. Bar Rules Committee, 223 Ark. 465, 266 S.W.2d 818; Re Thatcher v. United States (C.C.A. 6th Circuit 1914), 212 F. 801.
Put another way, in objecting to the admission in evidence of these records, respondent fails to recognize the distinction between disciplinary and usual civil or criminal proceedings. In In Re Lacy, 234 Mo. App. 71, 112 S.W.2d 594, 601, the Missouri court drew this distinction saying:
Rule 254, R.C.P.Colo. provides:
'To warrant a finding of misconduct, the charges must be established by substantial, clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.'
However, this does not mean that strict rules of evidence apply in disbarment proceedings, although they are frequently invoked to insure a fair hearing (Werner supra).
In State v. Gudmundsen, 145 Neb. 324, 16 N.W.2d 474, 476, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colorado Supreme Court Grievance Committee v. District Court, City and County of Denver, Colo.
...745, 748 (Colo.1981); ABA Standards for Lawyer Discipline and Disability Proceedings § 1.2 (1979); see also People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 503-04, 364 P.2d 380, 381 (1961) (drawing distinction between attorney disciplinary proceedings and criminal or civil actions), cert. denied, 369 U.S.......
-
Magee v. State Bar of Cal.
...we are not bound by the decision in the action setting aside Mrs. Rohde's will on this ground. (In re Macfarlane, supra; People v. Howard, 364 P.2d 380 (Colo.); Tennessee Bar Association v. Berke, 48 Tenn.App. 140, 344 S.W.2d 567, 571; In re Santosuosso, 318 Mass. 489, 62 N.E.2d 105, 107, 1......
-
People v. Harfmann
...See also, People v. Morgan, 194 Colo. 260, 574 P.2d 79 (1977); People v. Roberts, 184 Colo. 358, 520 P.2d 133 (1974); People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 364 P.2d 380 (1961). Thus, we must make a case-by-case analysis of every disciplinary complaint to determine whether a particular rule of ci......
-
Howard v. United States District Court for D. of C.
...2d 689, certiorari denied 361 U.S. 916, 80 S.Ct. 258, 4 L.Ed.2d 184. 2 People v. Howard, 140 Colo. 151, 342 P.2d 635. 3 People v. Howard, 147 Colo. 501, 364 P.2d 380. 4 369 U.S. 819, 82 S.Ct. 830, 7 L.Ed.2d 5 In the federal court proceeding Howard did not object to the receipt in evidence o......