State Bar Comm'n ex rel. Williams v. Sullivan

Citation131 P. 703,1912 OK 527,35 Okla. 745
Decision Date23 July 1912
Docket NumberCase Number: 3506
PartiesSTATE BAR COMMISSION ex rel. WILLIAMS v. SULLIVAN.
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Syllabus

¶0 1. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT--Disbarment--Verification of Charges. In disbarment proceedings instituted by the State Bar Commission by the order and direction of the Supreme Court, no verification of the specification of charges is necessary, under section 267, Comp. Laws 1909.

2. SAME--Determination of Sufficiency. The sufficiency of the verification must be determined by an inspection of it, and the evidence of affiant cannot be taken for the purpose of showing that he had no personal knowledge as to the charges.

3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW--Jury--Right to Practice Law--Vested Right--Jury Trial. The right to practice law is not a vested right, but a mere privilege, and an action to disbar an attorney under section 267, Comp. Laws 1909, is a civil proceeding, and the accused is not entitled to a trial by a jury as a matter of right.

4. ATTORNEY AND CLIENT--Disbarment--Grounds--Attack on Court. The obligation which attorneys assume when they are admitted to the bar is not simply to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but to maintain at all times the respect due the courts of justice and judicial officers. This obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but includes abstaining, out of court, from insulting language and offensive conduct toward the judges personally for their judicial acts. An attorney may criticise the courts so long as his criticisms are made in good faith and in respectful language, but the printing and publication of a pamphlet falsely, purposely, and maliciously attacking the integrity of the courts and the judges thereof, designed to willfully, purposely and maliciously misrepresent the courts and the judges thereof and bring them into disrepute and lessen the respect due them, violates his duties and obligations as an attorney and counselor at law, for which he may be disbarred.

5. SAME--Pleading as Evidence. Under section 266, Comp. Laws 1909, an attorney cannot be suspended or disbarred for the filing of any pleading or exhibit in the courts of this state, but a petition, with a pamphlet attached thereto as an exhibit, falsely and maliciously attacking the courts of this state and the judges thereof, may be considered as evidence upon the question of the attorney's moral and mental fitness to practice law.

6. SAME-- Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, having exclusive jurisdiction to admit attorneys to practice law, has, independent of statutory authority, the inherent power to disbar attorneys for misconduct.

C. W. Stringer, for plaintiff.

James Twyford, for defendant.

DUDLEY, SPECIAL JUDGE.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court by the State Bar Commission, on the relation of Ben F. Williams, against P. M. Sullivan, a member of the bar of this court and the inferior courts of the state, residing at Oklahoma City. The regular judges of the Supreme Court were disqualified, and this fact was certified by them to the Governor of the state, who thereupon appointed five special justices of the Supreme Court to hear and determine this cause, who thereafter assembled at Oklahoma City and qualified as such, and heard the testimony in this case. Before proceeding to a discussion of the merits of the case, it becomes necessary to determine some preliminary questions raised and urged by counsel for defendant. The specification of charges was filed January 13, 1912. The defendant was duly notified of the filing of the charges and furnished with a copy thereof, and in due course of time filed an answer to and an explanation of the charges and specification filed against him, to which the plaintiff filed a reply, by way of general denial. Upon the hearing of the cause, the defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence upon the part of the plaintiff in support of the specification of charges, for the reason that the petition or specification of charges was not verified, as required by law, in that it was verified upon information and belief and not positively; and thereupon C. W. Stringer, the attorney for the plaintiff and the person who verified the specification of charges upon information and belief, asked leave of court to amend the verification of charges by making the verification positive. Leave was granted to do so and the amendment was made, and after the conclusion of the taking of testimony upon the part of the plaintiff the defendant again challenged the sufficiency of the verification of the specification of charges, for the reason that the testimony clearly showed that Mr. Stringer had no personal knowledge of the allegations contained in the specification of charges, and that by reason thereof the court did not have jurisdiction. The position of counsel for defendant is not well taken, for two reasons: (1) This proceeding was commenced by the Bar Commission of the State of Oklahoma, by the order and direction of this court, and therefore, under section 267, p. 229, Comp. Laws 1909, it was not necessary for the specification of charges to be verified at all; and (2), even though it were necessary for the specification of charges to be verified, after the amendment was made as to the verification, it was then a positive verification and its sufficiency must be determined by an inspection of the verification itself; and, even though it developed upon the hearing of the case (a point which we do not concede) that the person who made the verification did not have actual knowledge of the statements contained therein, this fact cannot be taken for the purpose of showing that he had no personal knowledge. In re Collins, 147 Cal. 8, 81 P. 220. It was also contended by the defendant that his right to practice law in the courts of this state was a vested right, and that therefore as a matter of right he was entitled to a trial by a jury in this court, upon the charges preferred against him, under chapter 56, p. 97, of the Session Laws of 1910, providing for trial by jury in this court. To this contention of the defendant we cannot agree. The right to practice law is not a vested right, but a mere privilege. 4 Cyc. p. 898, and cases cited; State ex rel. Mackintosh, Pros. Atty., v. Rossman, 53 Wash. 1, 101 P. 357, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 821, 17 Ann. Cas. 625. Section 268, p. 229, Comp. Laws 1909, on the subject of "Trial in Disbarment Proceedings," specifically provides that the issues joined shall in all cases be tried by the court. This is a specific statute covering this class of proceedings, and should govern over the general statute. Section 1, c. 56, p. 97, of the Session Laws of 1910, provides:

"That in any cause now pending or hereafter brought in the Supreme Court wherein said court is exercising its original jurisdiction in which an issue of fact is presented properly triable by a jury, and either party to said cause demands a jury trial, said court shall not dismiss such cause for the reason that a jury is required, but shall proceed in the manner hereinafter prescribed."

¶2 The issue of fact presented here is not properly triable by a jury, for the reason that the special statute governing the trial of proceedings of this kind specifically provides that all questions of fact shall be tried by the court. The provision of the Constitution as to the right of a trial by a jury means the right of trial by jury as it existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Williams' Ann. Const., sec. 27, p. 15; State v. Cobb, 24 Okla. 662, 104 P. 361, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 639; Baker v. Newton, 27 Okla. 436, 112 P. 1034. A disbarment proceeding, under our statute, is a civil proceeding ( In re Biggers, 24 Okla. 842, 104 P. 1083), and the right to a trial by a jury in a disbarment proceeding did not exist at the time of the adoption of the Constitution ( Dean v. Stone, 2 Okla. 13, 35 P. 578). We therefore are clearly of the opinion that the defendant was not as a matter of law entitled to a trial by jury, and his application was denied. This disposes of all preliminary questions raised and urged by the defendant, and we now proceed to a discussion of the merits of the case. It is alleged in substance in paragraph 2 of the specification of charges that the defendant is not a fit and proper person to engage in the practice of law in this state and should be disbarred, for the reason that he has been guilty of gross misconduct and has violated his oath and duty as an attorney and counselor at law. This paragraph is subdivided into five specific charges. However, we only deem it necessary to consider two of them, namely, the second and fifth, and we will therefore discuss them in their order. In the second subdivision of this general charge it is alleged that the defendant has been guilty of gross misconduct and violated his duty and obligations as an attorney and counselor at law, in that he, within a year prior to the filing of the specification of charges in this court, falsely, maliciously, and without reasonable justification or excuse caused to be printed and published a certain book or pamphlet entitled "A Criminal Combine," consisting of the Governor, the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, district courts, district clerks, district attorneys, referees, perjurers, murder plotters, and crooks galore in the state of Oklahoma; that said book or pamphlet was printed and published by the defendant for the purpose of giving vent and expression to his own personal spleen and malice, and to excite and create an ill will and prejudice against the courts of this state and the judges thereof, and the other officers and attorneys mentioned in said publication. The defendant in his answer admitted the printing and publication of the pamphlet, but claims that the publication was in good faith and without malicious motives, and that the statements and allegations therein contained are...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • In re Steen
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 13 Abril 1931
    ...... . . The. statutes of the state governing venue and change of venue in. proceedings, not ... court. . . People. ex rel. Thomas v. Berry (Colo.), 29 P. 904; In. re Martin C. ...164; State Bar Commission, ex rel. Williams v. Sullivan, 35 Okla. 745; In re Simpson, 9. N. Dakota, ......
  • Ex parte Redmond
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Enero 1930
    ...... Mashbir, 44 A.D. 632, 60 N.Y.S. 451; Zachery v. State, 43 So. 925; State ex rel. Rude v. Young, . 30 Fla. 85, ...Schufeldt v. Barker, . 56 Ill. 299; Williams v. Sullivan, 35 Okla. 745, L.R.A. 1915D, 1218, 131 P. 703. ......
  • In Matter of Richards, 32421.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 Octubre 1933
    ...... to disbar attorneys from the practice of law, State v. Selleck, 252 Mo. 369: In re Sizer, 300 Mo. 369, 306 Mo. 356; State ex rel. v. Mullins, 129 Mo. 231; State ex rel. v. Harber, 129 Mo. ...Finley v. Williams, 29 S.W. (2d) 103. (4) The acquittal of respondent of the ...Cas. 418; State Bar Com. ex rel. Williams v. Sullivan, 35 Okla. 745, L.R.A. 1915D, 1218, 1223; Gould v. State of ......
  • In re Richards
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 16 Octubre 1933
    ...... practice of law. State v. Selleck, 252 Mo. 369;. In re Sizer, 300 Mo. 369, 306 Mo. 356; State ex. rel. v. Mullins, 129 Mo. 231; State ex rel. v. Harber, 129 ... witnesses passed upon. Finley v. Williams, 29 S.W.2d. 103. (4) The acquittal of respondent of the ...Cas. 418;. State Bar Com. ex rel. Williams v. Sullivan, 35. Okla. 745, L. R. A. 1915D, 1218, 1223; Gould v. ......
  • 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