Peterson, In re, C
| Decision Date | 05 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. C,C |
| Citation | 56 Wn.2d 187,351 P.2d 533 |
| Parties | In re Disciplinary Proceedings against Gene F. PETERSON, an Attorney at Law. D. 2948. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
T. M. Royce, Seattle, Counsel, Washington State Bar Ass'n for Washington State Bar Ass'n Bd. of Governors.
Gene F. Peterson, pro se.
In this disbarment proceeding, the board of governors charged the respondent, a member of the bar of this state, with ten specific items of misconduct. The evidence in support of three of the specifications was insufficient, and, in consequence, the board of governors has recommended dismissal, which recommendation the court adopts. On four of the specifications, a reprimand was recommended. A three-month suspension was recommended upon one charge, and permanent disbarment was recommended upon two charges.
The findings of the board on the two more serious charges are not only supported by the evidence, but the defense scarcely can be characterized as a denial of the facts; in consequence of which, we adopt the recommendation of the board of governors and permanently disbar the respondent from the practice of law in the state of Washington.
In view of this conclusion, a summary of the evidence in support of the four charges upon which the board of governors recommended only a reprimand would not serve any useful purpose.
Respondent represented Eli Jones in a personal injury claim against a railroad. Respondent employed a lawyer of high standing and repute to handle Jones's case. The record does not disclose whether an action was begun for the client Jones or whether the settlement was concluded without instituting an action.
For his compensation, the respondent had a contingent fee contract for one third of the recovery. Respondent and the lawyer employed by him recommended that Jones accept a settlement of fifty-five thousand dollars. This he did upon a reduction of the attorneys' fee to eight thousand dollars. After the medical expenses were paid, Jones received thirty-eight thousand dollars net.
Whether requested by Jones or whether the respondent volunteered to do so, is a matter in dispute which we need not resolve because in either case the result is the same. In all events, it is certain beyond cavil that the respondent undertook to invest or supervise the investment of Jones's money. This was of the utmost importance to Jones because of his total lack of experience in such matters. Moreover, in the accident he lost both legs and one arm and the other hand.
The money was deposited in a savings bank. Shortly thereafter, the respondent introduced to Jones his friend Stolz.
Stolz induced Jones to loan thirty thousand dollars to the Metropolitan Mortgage and Securities Company of Spokane in return for its written promise to repay the principal with eight per cent interest. For this purpose, the respondent, at Jones's request, withdrew the necessary funds from Jones's savings account. The entire amount, however, did not go to the mortgage company for, from the funds so withdrawn, the respondent purchased a draft or check payable to Stolz in the sum of two thousand dollars for his commission on the transaction. This Stolz split with the respondent. Although the one thousand dollars was paid respondent either on the day of the withdrawal from Jones's savings account or the day after, the board of governors decided that the evidence does not show an advance agreement between Stolz and the respondent to split the commission.
However, respondent never revealed to his client Jones that he had received one half of the commission for obtaining the loan. It was secret. Respondent stoutly maintains that he was under no duty to make this disclosure to his client.
In the oath which respondent took upon admission to the bar, he swore:
'I * * * will accept no compensation in connection with his business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;' Rule for Admission to Practice 6, 34A Wash.2d 164.
Canon of Professional Ethics 38, 34A Wash.2d 142, is as follows:
'A lawyer should accept no compensation, commissions, rebates or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosellini, Matter of
...P.2d 761 (1956); In re Ward, 54 Wash.2d 593, 343 P.2d 872 (1959); In re Carroll, 54 Wash.2d 633, 343 P.2d 1023 (1959); In re Peterson, 56 Wash.2d 187, 351 P.2d 533 (1960); In re Griffin, 58 Wash.2d 149, 361 P.2d 569 (1961); In re Timothy, 58 Wash.2d 153, 361 P.2d 642 (1961); In re McDole, 6......
-
Pennington, In re
...such violations, while commendable do not constitute a defense to the disciplinary action. In re Simmons, supra; In re Peterson, 56 Wash.2d 187, 351 P.2d 533 (1960); In re Grant, 4 Wash.2d 617, 104 P.2d 602 (1940); In re Smith, 3 Wash.2d 455, 101 P.2d 311 Although, as indicated, we have in ......
-
Simmons, In re, C
...restitution is not a defense and, in the instant case, the alleged restitution lacked $2,366.68 of being complete. In re Peterson, 56 Wash.2d 187, 351 P.2d 533 (1960). See, also, In re Walsh, 40 Wash.2d 593, 244 P.2d 868 We find no merit in this contention. For the reasons stated, we adopt ......