The State Board of Law Examiners v. Spriggs

• Decision Date: 23 January 1945
• Docket Number: 2299
• Citation: 61 Wyo. 70,155 P.2d 285
• Parties: THE STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Complainant, v. JOHN J. SPRIGGS, Respondent
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

155 P.2d 285

61 Wyo. 70

THE STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS, Complainant, v. JOHN J. SPRIGGS, Respondent

No. 2299

Supreme Court of Wyoming

January 23, 1945

Disbarment proceeding by the State Board of Law Examiners against John J. Spriggs. On respondent's objections and exceptions to recommendation of the trial court.

Respondent suspended from practice for a period of six months.

For the complainant there were briefs filed by L. J. O'Marr Attorney General, and Ray E. Lee, Assistant Attorney General of Wyoming, and oral argument by Mr. Lee.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANTS

The duties and obligations of attorneys and the power and authority of the Court with reference to their right to practice is clearly stated in In Re Brown, 3 Wyo 121, and Board of Law Examiners v. Brown, 53 Wyo. 42.

The defense that the statements are privileged should be denied because the attack is clearly a wilful and vicious attack made upon the Court as a whole and not merely upon a political candidate; and because the charges made against the Court are false and were not made in good faith. An attorney may be disbarred or suspended from practice for improper attacks upon the Court, impugning its integrity or ability either in pleadings, public utterances or briefs. In Re Dunn, 85 Neb. 606, 124 N.W. 120; In Re Hanson, 99 Kan. 23, 160 P. 1141; Thatcher v. United States, 212 F. 801; In Re Humphrey (Calif.), 163 P. 60; State Bar Commission v. Sullivan (Okla.), 131 P. 703; In Re Egan (S. Dak.) 123 N.W. 478; State v. Willis (Wash.), 163 P. 737; In Re Hilton (Utah), 158 P. 691.

For the respondent there were briefs filed by Thos. A. Nicholas of Casper, Wyoming, and John J. Spriggs, the respondent, of Lander, Wyoming, and oral argument by Mr. Spriggs.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

The entire proceedings are an intolerable abuse of judicial process. Baumgartner v. United States, 64 S.Ct. 1245.

Ex Parte Owen, 258 P. 802.

METZ, District Judge, Presiding as Chief Justice. ILSLEY and THOMPSON, District Judges, concur.

OPINION

METZ, District Judge,

Presiding as Chief Justice.

This proceeding was filed in the District Court of Fremont County, Wyoming, on behalf of The State Board of Law Examiners asking for the disbarment of the Respondent. The proceedings are based upon Chapter 9, Wyoming Revised Statutes, 1931. The case was heard before a court composed of three of the District Judges of the state, and that court filed its recommendations in this court on June 8, 1944, recommending his suspension from practice for two years. The respondent has filed his objections and exceptions to these recommendations.

Briefly stated, the charge against the respondent is that he wrote and circulated a pamphlet attacking this court, and making false, contemptuous and scandalous charges against the court. The pamphlet was issued by the respondent when he was a candidate for nomination to the office of Justice of this court, and one of the members of the Supreme Court was his opponent.

The respondent's defense is based primarily upon five propositions:

1st: That the District Court and the Supreme Court are both without jurisdiction to hear this matter.

2nd: That he is entitled to a jury trial.

3rd: That he cannot be proceeded against except by action in libel.

4th: That he was a litigant and as such had a right to criticise the court.

5th: That the letter expresses his opinion, that it makes no difference whether he is right or wrong, he cannot be punished for expressing an opinion, as the Constitution guarantees him freedom of speech.

The respondent admits writing and circulating the objectionable article complained of herein. There is no dispute as to the material facts.

The respondent is 67 years old and has been a practicing attorney in this state since 1908. A number of years ago, he became attorney for a Mr. Tibbals, who was interested in mining claims in Fremont County, Wyoming, and a great deal of litigation resulted over these claims, and different questions involving the claims were litigated through the district court and into the supreme court four different times. See: Tibbals v. Keys, 40 Wyo. 524, 281 P. 190; State ex rel Tibbals vs. District Court, 42 Wyo. 214, 292 P. 897; Tibbals and Spriggs vs. Graham et al, 50 Wyo. 277, 61 P.2d 279; Tibbals and Spriggs vs. Graham et al, 55 Wyo. 169, 97 P.2d 673. The respondent was largely successful in most of the litigation in the district and supreme courts. However, one or two decisions in the district court he took serious exception to, and one or two decisions in the supreme court he likewise seriously objected to and upon his last petition for rehearing being denied, this article was written.

The respondent acquired an interest in these mining claims from Tibbals and became a party plaintiff in the last two above mentioned cases.

In the summer of 1942, the respondent became a candidate for the nomination as justice of the supreme court against Justice Riner, whose term was expiring that year. In the summer of 1942, the article complained about herein was published by the respondent and mailed to members of the bar and others in the state. The respondent was defeated in the primary election.

The respondent objected to the three supreme court justices declining to sit upon his hearing, and objected to the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction by a supreme court of three district court judges called in specially to hear the matter.

The Constitution of The State of Wyoming, Article V, Section 6, provides:

"CALLING DISTRICT JUDGES. In case a justice of the supreme court shall for any reason be unable to sit in any cause in said court, the presiding justice of said court shall call one of the district judges to sit as a member of said court on the hearing of said cause."

This constitutional provision became operative December 3, 1918, and has been recognized by the courts of this state ever since, and the different district judges of the state have been called in by the presiding justice numerous times to sit upon the supreme bench, pursuant to this constitutional provision. It has been possible in the past, however, for one of the supreme justices to sit with two of the district judges. This is the first time in the history of this court that it has become necessary to call in three district judges to fill the places of the three supreme court justices. The judiciary of this state consists of three supreme court justices and seven district court judges. Three of the district court judges heard the matter in the district court and are thus disqualified. One other district judge disqualified himself, and the three supreme court justices disqualified themselves. Thus we three district judges have the duty of sitting upon this case and determining the matter.

We believe that this constitutional provision contemplates the calling in of a district judge to take the place of each justice who shall for any reason be unable to sit. Thus if one, two or all three justices for any reason think they should not sit in a case, each place is filled by a district judge who is called in by the Chief Justice.

The constitutional provision was adopted to expedite the disposition of cases in this court, and also to provide a full panel to hear and determine litigation if any one or more justices were ill or for any reason felt he or they should not sit. The objection to the jurisdiction of this court as composed is overruled.

The respondent objects also to the jurisdiction of the trial court and to the refusal of a demand for a jury trial. Chapter 112 of the Session Laws of 1937, amending Wyo. R. S. 1931, Section 9-116, effective February 25, 1937, reads in part as follows:

"DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS. The State Board of Law Examiners shall enforce the laws relating to attorneys-at-law, and shall have general charge of suspension and disbarment proceedings, or proceedings brought to suspend or revoke the license of any attorney or counselor-at-law to practice in this state. Such proceedings shall be brought and the hearings had in the district court in the Wyoming county where the accused resides * * * *. The Judge of the District Court wherein the proceedings are brought shall call in to sit with him upon the hearing of any such proceedings two other district judges; provided, however, that the accused attorney shall be tried before said three-judge court and without a jury."

Section 9-114, Wyo. R. S. 1931, in part reads as follows:

"The Supreme and District Courts may revoke or suspend the license of any attorney or counselor at law to practice therein, for any of the following reasons: * * * 5. For the wilful violation of any of the duties of attorney or counselor."

The law pertaining to disbarment proceedings has been passed upon by this court in several cases in which it has been held that the proceedings in the district court are advisory to the supreme court, that the remedy prescribed for proceeding in the district court is not exclusive, and that the disbarment proceedings are not exactly either criminal or civil in nature, but partake of the character of special proceedings, disciplinary and summary in form, necessarily incident to the inherent power of the courts to control properly their own officers. State Board vs. Brown, 53 Wyo. 42, 77 P.2d 626. Thus it will be seen from the statutory provision that the trial court had jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to a jury trial. The constitutional provision in reference to libel and slander in which a jury determines the facts and the law is not applicable to this type of a proceeding.

We cannot subscribe to the law contended for by the respondent that he can only be proceeded against in a libel suit,...