State ex rel. Young v. Edmunson

• Decision Date: 21 February 1922
• Citation: 204 P. 619,103 Or. 243
• Parties: STATE ex rel. YOUNG et al. v. EDMUNSON.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

204 P. 619

103 Or. 243

STATE ex rel. YOUNG et al. v. EDMUNSON.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 21, 1922

In Banc.

Original proceeding in disbarment by the State of Oregon, on the relation of Donald Young and others, against Leon R Edmunson. Defendant disbarred.

This is an original proceeding instituted in this court by Donald Young, Chas. M. Stevens, and J.S. Medley, Grievance Committee of the Lane County Bar Association, for the purpose of effecting the disbarment of Leon R. Edmunson from further practice as an attorney at law within the state of Oregon.

Among other things the information avers that the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association "have found reasonable grounds to believe, and do believe, that Leon R. Edmunson has been guilty of misconduct in his profession, and has been convicted of misdemeanors involving moral turpitude, and that the same deserves and merits disbarment."

The accusation contains a statement of alleged facts constituting violations of city ordinances and statutes of the state. It is averred that Edmunson has been convicted: First, of disorderly conduct; second, of wrongful and unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors; third, of the crime of libel; fourth, of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor; and it is further alleged that on April 26, 1921, a complaint was filed in the justice court, charging Edmunson with the crime of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of chapter 40 General Laws of Oregon for 1917; that Edmunson was never arrested on this charge for the reason that he fled from the state of Oregon before a warrant of arrest could be served upon him, and that he ever since has been, and now is, a fugitive from justice.

Upon proper showing an order was made by this court:

"That said Leon R. Edmunson appear and answer said charge in this court on the 13th day of October, 1921, at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon, or the court will proceed to hear and determine the same without his presence."

Service of the order was had by publication.

Edmunson filed his answer denying that he has been engaged in the practice of law at Eugene, Or., since January, 1917, and further denied "that the offenses or misdemeanors alleged in the said Grievance Committee's complaint in any sense involve moral turpitude or misconduct in the practice of law." He further alleged that--

"The said complaint is filed by said Grievance Committee in bad faith, * * * founded upon personal prejudice, enmity and malice."

For a "further and more detailed answer," he says:

"That prior to the alleged offenses stated in said Grievance Committee's complaint it was not a violation of the laws of Oregon or the United States to use intoxicating liquor; that the same was made a misdemeanor in the state of Oregon, also under statutes of the United States; that while the prohibition laws have been made constitutional they have not become institutional, and a large percentage of the people of Oregon and of the United States do not adhere to said laws, for the reason that the same is an abridgment of personal liberty and contrary to our theory of self-government; that the overzealous crib-feeders magnify its importance in their attempted enforcement."

He then launches an attack upon certain other members of the Lane County Bar. To print his scurrilous statements concerning other lawyers would serve no good end here. This inquiry concerns the acts of the defendant. We are confined to the record before us.

For the purpose of taking testimony herein, S.M. Calkins was appointed referee; the relators appearing by Mr. J.S. Medley and Donald Young. The defendant, failing to appear, made default. Testimony was offered in support of the charges contained in the information. Thereafter the defendant proffered a demurrer, challenging the information "upon the grounds and for the reason, to wit, that the same does not constitute sufficient grounds upon which a proceeding for disbarment can be based."

BROWN J. (after stating the facts as above).

The information filed by the Grievance Committee states facts sufficient to show that Leon R. Edmunson has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

"Moral turpitude is anything done contrary to justice, honesty principle or good morals." Words and Phrases, citing In re Disbarment of Coffey, 123 Cal. 522, 56 P. 448, 449.

To like effect see In re Hopkins, 54 Wash. 569, 103 P. 805; 2 Thornton on Attorneys at Law, § 857.

The sale of intoxicating liquor, by an attorney at law, contrary to the provisions of the prohibition law, constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. Any person who knowingly and willfully publishes false and scandalous matter concerning another commits an act constituting a crime which involves moral turpitude. Both of the above crimes, and others, were alleged to have been committed by the defendant. The accusation alleges facts which, if true, constitutes a violation of the provisions of subdivision 1 of section 1092, Or.L., and of other provisions of the statute as well. The pleading is sufficient.

The theory of the accusers that the defendant has committed acts sufficient to constitute grounds for disbarment has been fully outlined in the information on file herein, and we will add that the charges have been sustained by the evidence, and are supported by the law. Subdivision 1 of section 1092, Or.L., makes the record of Edmunson's conviction conclusive evidence thereof.

Under our Code, an attorney is a public officer who has been admitted, or may hereafter be admitted, as such by the Supreme Court of this state. Section 1076, Or.L. An applicant for admission as an attorney must apply to the Supreme Court, and must show, among other things, that he is a person of good moral character. Section 1077, Or.L. If, upon examination, he be found qualified, an oath shall be administered to him "to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state." Section 1080, Or.L. Section 1082, Or.L., prescribes the duty of an attorney. Subdivision 1 of this section requires him "to support the Constitution and the laws of the United States and of this state." Relative to removing or suspending an attorney from practice, section 1092 provides that:

"An attorney may be removed or suspended by the Supreme Court for either of the following causes, arising after his admission to practice:

"1. Upon his being convicted of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, in either of which cases the record of his conviction is conclusive evidence;

"2. For a willful disobedience or violation of the order of a court requiring him to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of his profession;

"3. For being guilty of any willful deceit or misconduct in his profession;

"4. For a willful violation of any of the provisions of section 1082."

In addition hereto, the Legislative Assembly of 1901 (Laws 1901, p. 67) enacted a statute "to regulate disbarment proceedings," which was amended by chapter 259, Laws of 1915 (section 1091, Or.L.) to read:

"Any member of the bar of this state shall be disbarred by the Supreme Court, upon proper proceedings for that purpose,...