Steinberg, In re, 2465
| Decision Date | 07 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 2465,2465 |
| Citation | 44 Wn.2d 707,269 P.2d 970 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re STEINBERG. |
A. Vernon Stoneman, Seattle, for State Bar Association.
Jack Steinberg, Seattle, pro se.
The board of governors of the Washington state bar association has presented to this court for final disposition its recommendation that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty days. The recommendation confirms the report of a trial committee.
The recommended suspension is based upon a finding of the trial committee that respondent violated Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 27 (34A Wash.2d 136), which reads in part, as follows.
'It is unprofessional to solicit professional employment by circulars, advertisements, through touters or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations.'
The trial committee found that respondent sought professional employment by means of letters to the German consul general in San Francisco and the German consul in Seattle, which communications were not warranted by any personal relations or oral retainers received from either of these officials. Further, it was found that this breach of conduct was an aggravated one, in view of the provisions and conditions contained in a reprimand issued to respondent by the board of governors of the Washington state bar association on August 18, 1949, which contained the following:
'Wherefore, By reason of the facts and of the law and of the Canons of Professional Ethics, the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association hereby reprimands Jack Steinberg, respondent, for violation of Canons of Professional Ethics numbered 17, 27, 32, and 47, and admonishes Jack Steinberg that he refrain from the practices hereinabove described, and directs respondent to cease and desist from the investigation of probate proceedings in counties outside of the State of Washington, and that respondent make investigations and reports of probate cases within the State of Washington with a view to ascertaining the names of foreign heirs only upon written authorization of foreign consulates limited to foreign heirs of countries represented by such consulate.'
At the outset, we emphasize that the gravamen of the charge against respondent is the solicitation of business, contrary to the tenet of the canon of ethics. The charge centers around certain correspondence which we will quote later in this opinion. Respondent is not charged with a violation of the 1949 reprimand, by failing to have the alleged contract of his employment in writing.
Prior to the incidents upon which the charge is based, the mayor of Seattle had appointed respondent judge pro tempore of the municipal traffic court. He had occupied the bench on approximately four occasions, prior to June 22, 1952.
On June 22, 1952, respondent held a reception at his home, to which a large number of people were invited. On that day, he telephoned Dr. Gerhard R. Stahlberg, German consul at San Francisco then visiting in Seattle, to invite him to the reception, but could not reach him. Respondent had never met Dr. Stahlberg.
Later that evening, Dr. Stahlberg returned the telephone call. He was unable to attend the reception.
We mention this incident, not because we have given it any weight in considering the charges against respondent, but because respondent claims that Dr. Stahlberg retained him, during this telephone conversation, to represent the interests of German nationals, heirs of estates then in probate in the state of Washington.
On June 28, 1952, Dr. Stahlberg wrote respondent from San Francisco, as follows:
'San Francisco, June 28, 1952.
'Seattle, Washington.
'Your Honor:
'Please convey my respects to the Mayor.
'Very truly yours,
'[signed] Gerhard R. G. Stahlberg
'Consul General'
In response to Dr. Stahlberg's letter of June 28, 1952, respondent, on July 10, 1952, wrote him as follows:
'July 10, 1952
'Dr. Gerhard R. Stahlberg
'German Consul General
'415 Alameda de las Pulgas
'San Mateo, California
'Dear Dr. Stahlberg:
'One of the sisters is Anna Senk who resides in Germany.
'The consulates which I represent in the State of Washington generally pay my office a fee of ten percent which is taken out of the legacy in payment of the local representation on behalf of the heir.
'I shall be very happy to await your further instructions in connection with this case.' (Italics ours.)
Respondent testified, and the trial committee found, that Dr. Stahlberg, or one of his associates, replied to respondent's letter of July 10, 1952. Respondent then wrote the consul general again (probably on July 22, 1952), enclosing a proposed power of attorney to be executed by the German heirs in the Miller estate, to which respondent referred in his letter of July 10. The members of the German consulate invoked their diplomatic immunity and would not testify, so that the letters received and the copies of letters written by them were not available. Respondent, under conditions not necessary for us to set forth, had destroyed his copies of the letters identified in this paragraph. No criticism attaches to respondent for having done so.
The report of the trial committee was made June 24, 1953. Thereafter, respondent received a letter, dated June 27, 1953, from the German consulate in San Francisco. It identifies and refers to the correspondence which was not available at the trial. Counsel for the bar association stipulated that this letter might be received as an exhibit in this matter and considered. Although the trial committee did not reopen the case, it incorporated the letter of June 27, 1953, in the record, so that it was before the board of governors when it reviewed the record and it is now before this court.
The pertinent portion of this letter reads as follows:
'I confirm the following:
We return to the chronology of the events upon which the charge is based--the solicitation of business contrary to the canon of ethics which we have quoted.
August 22, 1952, respondent wrote the following letter to the German consulate general at San Francisco, to the attention of Dr. Heinrich Liebrecht:
'Dear Dr. Liebrecht:
'Clerks of the Superior Courts of the State of Washington quite often require written proof of representation. May I therefore respectfully request that you adress (sic) a letter similar to the following to me:
'It has been a pleasure for me to have been of service of your office thus far.'
August 28, 1952, an associate of the consul general, Dr. Liebrecht, replied:
'Dear Mr. Steinberg:
'Thank you for your letter of August 22, 1952.
'It will then be a pleasure to recommend your suggestion to the new consul.'
The suggested letter of authority to the clerks of the superior courts was never executed.
Respondent wrote three additional letters: One on November 10, 1952, to the German consul in San Francisco; and two on December 8 and December 23, 1952, to the German consul in Seattle. Each letter called to the attention of the addressee an estate in probate in this state in which a German national or a German charity was interested as a beneficiary.
Each of respondent's letters to the German consul in Seattle opened with this paragraph:
'I am directing this letter to you at the request of the Consul General for Germany at San Francisco who has authorized me to refer probate matters affecting German nationals direct to your office.'
These facts are either admitted by respondent, proved by undisputed written instruments, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krogh, In re
...system. In re Greenlee, 82 Wash.2d 390, 510 P.2d 1120 (1973); In re Hawkins, 81 Wash.2d 504, 503 P.2d 95 (1972); In re Steinberg, 44 Wash.2d 707, 269 P.2d 970 (1954). In making the ultimate determination as to the measure of disciplinary action, we give consideration to: (a) the seriousness......
-
Short v. Demopolis
...Responsibility establishes the standard to be met by lawyers, and the disciplinary rules the method of enforcement. In re Steinberg, 44 Wash.2d 707, 715, 269 P.2d 970 (1954). The disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, not the Consumer Protection Act, must govern the ......
-
McGough, Matter of, 6771
...In re Cary, 90 Wash.2d 762, 766, 585 P.2d 1161 (1978); In re Smith, 83 Wash.2d 659, 663, 521 P.2d 212 (1974); In re Steinberg, 44 Wash.2d 707, 714-15, 269 P.2d 970 (1954); In re Little, 40 Wash.2d 421, 430, 244 P.2d 255 Although we afford great weight to the Board's recommended sanction, wh......
-
Salvesen, Matter of, CD
...212 (1974); In re Greenlee, 82 Wash.2d 390, 510 P.2d 1120 (1973); In re Hawkins, 81 Wash.2d 504, 503 P.2d 95 (1972); In re Steinberg, 44 Wash.2d 707, 269 P.2d 970 (1954). ...
-
Table of Cases
...111 Wn.2d 1032 (1989): 1.2(3) State Med. Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnston, 99 Wn.2d 466, 663 P.2d 457 (1983): 13.3(3)(a) Steinberg, In re, 44 Wn.2d 707, 269 P.2d 970 (1954): 2.2 Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling Sav. Bank, 178 Wn.2d 561, 311 P.3d 1 (2013): 1.3(2), 10.3(5), 14.2(1)(b), 14.3(1)......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Woll, 35 Wn.App. 560, 668 P.2d 610 (1983): 6–78 n.483 State v. Wright, 87 Wn.2d 783, 557 P.2d 1 (1976): 8–9 n.51 Steinberg, In re, 44 Wn.2d 707, 269 P.2d 970 (1954): 11–2 n.1; 16–30 n.289; 16–60 Stenson, In re Personal Restraint of, 142 Wn.2d 710, 16 P.3d 1 (2001): 4–12 n.79; 4–13 n.83; ......
-
Chapter §2.2 - Constitutional Context
...for violating the advertising and solicitation rules. See, e.g., In re Winthrop, 135 Wash. 135, 237 P. 3 (1925); In re Steinberg, 44 Wn.2d 707, 269 P.2d 970 When the ABA replaced the Canons with the Model Code of Professional Responsibility in 1969, the ban on law firm marketing was largely......
-
Chapter §11.1 Historical Overview: Development of the Constitutional Basis for Law-Firm Marketing
...today's issues to appreciate the distance traveled since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bates in 1977. 1.See, e.g., In re Steinberg, 44 Wn.2d 707, 269 P.2d 970 (1954); In re Winthrop, 135 Wn. 135, 237 P. 3 2.See Lightfoot v. MacDonald, 86 Wn.2d 331, 336, 544 P.2d 88 (1976) ("There is ......