Petition of Simmons
| Decision Date | 27 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. C,C |
| Citation | 499 P.2d 874,81 Wn.2d 43 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Petition of William Harry SIMMONS for Reinstatement as a Member of the Washington State Bar Association. D. 4026. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
William H. Simmons, Seattle, for petitioner.
Charles Mertel, Seattle, for respondent.
This is an application by William H. Simmons, petitioner, for reinstatement as a member of the Washington State Bar Association. Petitioner was admitted to the bar September 10, 1952. He was disbarred October 22, 1964. In re Simmons, 65 Wash.2d 88, 395 P.2d 1013 (1964). His first petition for reinstatement was denied June 1, 1967. In re Simmons, 71 Wash.2d 316, 428 P.2d 582 (1967).
Petitioner has been disbarred for eight years. During that time he was employed in several occupations. He was a real estate salesman, a county employee, and more recently, executive assistant to the secretary-treasurer of a Teamsters' Union local.
This application for reinsatement was heard by the Washington State Bar Association Board of Governors March 24, 1972, in Spokane, Washington. The members of the Board actively participated in the hearing and in the questioning of witnesses. After the hearing, the Board found petitioner's 'attitude and conduct establish rehabilitation and present moral fitness' and recommends 'that petitioner's application for reinstatement be granted.'
Consideration of petitioner's good conduct for eight years would strongly indicate he should be granted reinstatement, but for one incident which seems to cast doubt. On March 2, 1972, shortly before the hearing, petitioner was arrested by members of the Seattle Police Department for violation of Seattle City Ordinance No. 16046--12.11.460 1.
Petitioner was involved in a 3-car accident in the northern part of Seattle shortly after 8 p.m. on March 2, 1972. There is no indication that petitioner was at fault for the accident nor that he had violated any traffic law or ordinance.
After police arrived, Officer Michael J. Crist was in charge of the investigation. After about 10 minutes petitioner announced he was leaving the scene and attempted to leave. He was then handcuffed and taken first to the Wallingford Police Station (North Precinct) and later, to the city jail.
Petitioner claims he had a right to leave; that the police had no right to detain him. We need not pass on that contention.
Petitioner was not charged with any crime. The Seattle City Attorney gave a statement to the investigator 2 for the Bar Association saying he believed no crime had been committed.
Although no criminal charge was filed, we are nevertheless concerned with the attitude of petitioner. The attitude of an applicant for reinstatement is important. In re Simmons, 71 Wash.2d 316, 428 P.2d 582 (1967).
The decision of whether the petitioner shall be reinstated is a decision to be made by the Supreme Court. The Court stated in In re Seijas,63 Wash.2d 865, 389 P.2d 652 (1964):
Considerable, though not conclusive, weight will be attached to the findings of the Board of Governors.
See also In re Simmons, 59 Wash.2d 689, 369 P.2d 947 (1962). The recommendations of the hearing panel and of the Board of Governors are advisory only. In re Ross, 66 Wash.2d 233, 401 P.2d 975 (1965); In re Pennington, 73 Wash.2d 601, 440 P.2d 175 (1968).
This matter differs from In re Little, 40 Wash.2d 421, 244 P.2d 255 (1952), in that here the testimony was taken directly before the Board of Governors, which actually saw and heard the witnesses....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reinstatement of Walgren, Matter of
... ... On December 17, 1984, the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association held a public hearing to consider his petition. Voting 7 to 2, the Board recommended reinstatement on the condition Walgren take and pass the bar examination. We hold Walgren may not be ... In re Krogh, 93 Wash.2d 504, 507, 610 P.2d 1319 (1980); In re Simmons, 71 Wash.2d 316, 319-20, 428 P.2d 582 (1967). Accord, In re Wright, 102 Wash.2d 855, 859, 690 P.2d 1134 (1984). Before the Board of Governors, ... ...
-
Belsher, In re
... ... See also State v. Russo, 230 Kan. 5, 630 P.2d 711 (1981); State Bar of Tex. v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829 (Tex.1980); Petition of Morris, 175 Mont. 456, 575 P.2d 37 (1978). This privilege is burdened with certain conditions, one of which is possession of good moral ... "The recommendations of the hearing panel and of the Board of Governors are advisory only." In re Simmons ... ...
-
Brown, In re
... ... Jan. 29, 1980 ... Syllabus by the Court ... 1. In cases involving a petition for reinstatement where an attorney's license has been annulled, Article VI, Sections 4 and 35 of the By-Laws of The West Virginia State Bar must be ... See, E. g., In re Hiss, Supra ; Petition of Sears, 147 So.2d 522 (Fla.1962); Application of Sharpe, 499 P.2d 406 (Okl.1972); Re Simmons, 81 Wash.2d 43, 499 P.2d 874 (1972); Annot., 70 A.L.R.2d 268, 325 (1960); Machen, The Law of Disbarment and Reinstatement in Maryland, 36 Md.L.Rev ... ...
- Dolan v. King Cnty.
-
§12.3 RPC 8.4: Misconduct
...and his right of free speech." In re Simmons, 71 Wn.2d 316, 320, 428 P.2d 582 (1967). Simmons ultimately was reinstated, In re Simmons, 81 Wn.2d 43, 499 P.2d 874 (1972), but then disbarred again in 1988 for witness tampering. In re Simmons, 110 Wn.2d 925, 757 P.2d 519 228.MRPC 8.4 cmt. [2].......
-
Table of Cases
...Simmons, In re, 71 Wn.2d 316, 428 P.2d 582 (1967): 12–36 n.227; 16–44 n.392; 16–45 nn.400, 401; 16–46 nn.406, 407; 16–63 Simmons, In re, 81 Wn.2d 43, 499 P.2d 874 (1972): 12–36 n.227; 16–46 n.408; 16–64 Simmons, In re, 110 Wn.2d 925, 757 P.2d 519 (1988): 8–12; 8–12 nn.86, 87; 12–21 n.119; 1......