Power, In re, No. 31424

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtTHOMPSON
Citation96 N.E.2d 460,407 Ill. 525
PartiesIn re POWER.
Decision Date27 November 1950
Docket NumberNo. 31424

Page 460

96 N.E.2d 460
407 Ill. 525
In re POWER.
No. 31424.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Nov. 27, 1950.

Page 461

Charles Leviton, of Chicago, amicus curiae.

Marion J. Hannigan, of Chicago, for respondent.

THOMPSON, Justice.

The Committee on Grievances and the Board of Managers of the Chicago Bar Association, acting as commissioners of this court, after hearing on four separate complaints against respondent, Joseph P. Power, recommended his disbarment.

[407 Ill. 526] The facts concerning the first complaint are that in July, 1939, one Mary Meter delivered to respondent one five-hundred dollar and two one-hundred dollar real-estate bonds for the purpose of having respondent investigate their value. In September, 1939, respondent reported that there was $135 interest accrued on the bond and delivered that sum to Mrs. Meter. Thereafter, respondent applied the $500 bond to the purchase of certain realty and, upon inquiry from the complainant, failed to restore the bond until August, 1940, when this complaint was filed with the grievance committee by Mrs. Meter's brother in her behalf. Thereafter, respondent returned the two one-hundred dollar bonds and paid complainant $450 for the other bond. The evidence adduced on this complaint shows that the market value of the bond was $400 and that respondent had settled in full and had charged no fee. The commissioners found that respondent was guilty of unethical conduct and subject to severe criticism, but no action was taken further than that.

The second complaint, filed on behalf of one Dennis Sullivan, arose out of a retailers' occupational tax assessment for back taxes levied against Sullivan in the amount of $1165. One Gibbons, on behalf of Sullivan, consulted respondent in the matter and respondent undertook to accomplish liquidation of the claim in April, 1942. Respondent told Gibbons to bring him $600 and he would arrange a settlement. The evidence on this complaint shows that respondent received the $600, but made little or no effort to adjust the matter and made no report or return of the money. Gibbons, on behalf of Sullivan, filed this complaint with the grievance committee on January 12, 1943. Sullivan finally paid the entire amount of the assessment to the Department of Finance. After this complaint was filed, respondent returned the sum of $400 to Sullivan in one installment and later returned $100 more but has not made restitution of the remaining $100. There is some evidence [407 Ill. 527] that Gibbons authorized respondent to keep that balance as a fee for what work he did on the matter.

The commissioners found respondent guilty of unethical conduct and subject to severe criticism, but recommended no disciplinary action.

On May 8, 1944, the committee on inquiry filed a complaint against respondent based on a complaint made by O. R. Smith and Martha Smith. The situation out of which this complaint arose was that respondent represented William and Martha Smith as

Page 462

defendants in a mortgage foreclosure. In these proceedings William and Martha Smith were ordered to pay O. R. Smith and Douglas Lumber Company the sum of $85 per month as rent on the premises involved, beginning September 1, 1942. The rentals were delivered to respondent in the amounts ordered until August 30, 1943, when a total of $840 had been delivered to him. Of these payments, respondent did not remit $350, nor did he make restitution to his clients until after long and involved litigation and complaint to the bar association, after which the money withheld was paid. The complaint in this instance was jointly made by respondent's clients and the creditor of his clients. The commissioners censured the respondent but ordered the complaint filed without further action.

On August 11, 1947, the committee on inquiry filed its complaint against respondent, based on complaints of one Tom Kringas and the Unity Baptist Church. The facts on these matters disclosed that in the matter of the Tom Kringas complaint, respondent received from John Kringas, complainant's father, the sum of $300, to perfect an appeal from a judgment rendered against Tom Kringas. The appeal was never perfected and the respondent's defense on this complaint was that he returned the $300 to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Grant, In re, No. 54243
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 19 Febrero 1982
    ...offense. (See In re Costigan (1976), 63 Ill.2d 230, 347 N.E.2d 129; In re Bloom (1968), 39 Ill.2d 250, 234 N.E.2d 775; In re Power (1950), 407 Ill. 525, 96 N.E.2d 460.) For example, in In re Turner (1979), 75 Ill.2d 128, 25 Ill.Dec. 626, 387 N.E.2d 282, an attorney, without authorization, s......
  • Greenberg, In re, No. D--3
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 21 Marzo 1956
    ...reversed sub nom. Sacher v. Association of Bar of City of New York, 347 U.S. 388, 74 S.Ct. 569, 98 L.Ed. 790 (1954); In re Power, 407 Ill. 525, 96 N.E.2d 460 (1950). Cf. In re Lentz, 65 N.J.L. 134, 138, 46 A. 761, 50 L.R.A. 415 (Sup.Ct.1900); In re Breidt and Lubetkin, 84 N.J.Eq. 222, 229, ......
  • State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 30 Julio 1954
    ...as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine, would accomplish the end desired. The following cases enlighten the question. In re Power, 407 Ill. 525, 96 N.E.2d 460; In re Diesen, 173 Minn. 297, 215 N.W. 427, 217 N.W. 356; In re McDonald, 204 Minn. 61, 62, 282 N.W. 677, 284 N.W. 888; Barton v......
  • Gerard, In re, No. 68434
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 21 Diciembre 1989
    ...of funds does not preclude inquiry into the moral and professional quality of respondent's acts." (In re Power[132 Ill.2d 536] (1950), 407 Ill. 525, 531, 96 N.E.2d 460 (respondent did not do the work for which he was paid, and his return of the fees only after complaints were filed with the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Grant, In re, No. 54243
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 19 Febrero 1982
    ...offense. (See In re Costigan (1976), 63 Ill.2d 230, 347 N.E.2d 129; In re Bloom (1968), 39 Ill.2d 250, 234 N.E.2d 775; In re Power (1950), 407 Ill. 525, 96 N.E.2d 460.) For example, in In re Turner (1979), 75 Ill.2d 128, 25 Ill.Dec. 626, 387 N.E.2d 282, an attorney, without authorization, s......
  • Greenberg, In re, No. D--3
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 21 Marzo 1956
    ...reversed sub nom. Sacher v. Association of Bar of City of New York, 347 U.S. 388, 74 S.Ct. 569, 98 L.Ed. 790 (1954); In re Power, 407 Ill. 525, 96 N.E.2d 460 (1950). Cf. In re Lentz, 65 N.J.L. 134, 138, 46 A. 761, 50 L.R.A. 415 (Sup.Ct.1900); In re Breidt and Lubetkin, 84 N.J.Eq. 222, 229, ......
  • State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Murrell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 30 Julio 1954
    ...as reprimand, temporary suspension or fine, would accomplish the end desired. The following cases enlighten the question. In re Power, 407 Ill. 525, 96 N.E.2d 460; In re Diesen, 173 Minn. 297, 215 N.W. 427, 217 N.W. 356; In re McDonald, 204 Minn. 61, 62, 282 N.W. 677, 284 N.W. 888; Barton v......
  • Gerard, In re, No. 68434
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 21 Diciembre 1989
    ...of funds does not preclude inquiry into the moral and professional quality of respondent's acts." (In re Power[132 Ill.2d 536] (1950), 407 Ill. 525, 531, 96 N.E.2d 460 (respondent did not do the work for which he was paid, and his return of the fees only after complaints were filed with the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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