Petition for Disbarment of Wade, 39644

• Decision Date: 02 May 1955
• Docket Number: No. 39644,39644
• Citation: 224 Miss. 197,79 So.2d 727
• Parties: In re Petition for Disbarment of B. D. WADE.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 727

79 So.2d 727

224 Miss. 197

In re Petition for Disbarment of B. D. WADE.

No. 39644.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 2, 1955.

W. W. Pierce, Jackson, for appellant.

C. B. Snow, Ernest Ray Edwards, Rufus Creekmore, Milton Mitchell, Jackson, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Justice.

Pursuant to a petition filed by a Committee of the Hinds County Bar Association, and after a lengthy hearing, the Chancery Court of Hinds County permanently disbarred B. D. Wade, appellant. The final decree adjudicated him to be guilty of seven of the twelve specifications or charges made against him.

It will serve no purpose to set forth in detail the evidence and facts concerning the seven specifications upon which appellant was disbarred. We have considered carefully the lengthy record and briefs. The great weight of the evidence supports the decree of the chancery court permanently disbarring Wade for unprofessional and dishonest conduct, wholly inconsistent with and opposed to the high standards of character and performance expected of a member of the bar.

The evidence concerning Specification or Charge No. 1 shows that appellant prepared a will for an aged and ignorant Negro man named James Savage, who desired to leave his estate, consisting of seven lots of land in the City of Jackson, to his four daughters. Without the knowledge or consent of Savage, Wade designated himself as executor of the will to serve without bond, and inserted in the will a provision authorizing Wade to sell three of the lots, and from the proceeds to first pay the court costs accrued in probating the will, and then to pay the balance of the proceeds of these three lots, worth about $1,300, to appellant. Wade contends that this provision was written to compensate him for rendering legal services to Savage, both in the past and for the balance of Savage's life. However, this contention is so inconsistent with the testimony of Savage, and with Wade's conduct with reference to the will after it was executed, that it is wholly unreasonable.

Moreover, Robert Butler, appellant's witness and devisee of another lot in Savage's 1951 will, testified that he brought Savage to Wade's office, and was present during the three conversations between Savage and Wade concerning the will, but that he did not know anything about whether Wade was supposed to get anything under the will. Savage had never seen Wade before, and being 74 years of age at the time and not engaged in any business, the amount of the fee for alleged future legal services is ridiculous. Moreover, Wade admitted that Savage paid him $25 for drawing the will, and a week later Savage paid him a fee of $5 for preparing three affidavits. This is wholly inconsistent with the contention that the bequest to Wade was to cover all of his future legal services for Savage. The two provisions to which Savage objected were written in pencil by Wade on a rough, typewritten copy of Savage's will. When later contracted by another lawyer representing Savage, Wade refused to turn over to Savage or his attorney the will, and asserted a 'lien' on it for $275. Wade admitted that he had his secretary type and give Savage's granddaughter a false copy of the will. These ...