Townsend v. State Bar

• Decision Date: 23 January 1951
• Citation: 226 P.2d 581,36 Cal.2d 631
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWNSEND v. STATE BAR. L. A. 21726.

Page 581

226 P.2d 581

36 Cal.2d 631

TOWNSEND v. STATE BAR.

L. A. 21726.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

Jan. 23, 1951.

Crispus A. Wright and Vince Monroe Townsend, Jr., pro. per., Los Angeles, for petitioner.

James W. Hookstratten, Los Angeles, and Jerold E. Weil, San Francisco, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Board of Governors of the State Bar has recommended that Vince Monroe Townsend, Jr., be suspended from practice for a period of 30 days. Upon his petition, the proceeding is before this court for review.

Joseph B. Brown employed Townsend to protect his interests as an heir and otherwise in the estate of Elna Brown. The asserted misconduct is based upon the attorney's refusal to pay certain amounts collected by him from the executrix of the estate. By withholding a portion of these amounts, it is charged, he violated his oath and duties as an attorney at law and Rule 9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar.

There is no dispute as to the amounts collected by Townsend from the estate and he admits that he withheld them from his client. But he claims to have done so because of their disagreement concerning the amount to which he is entitled as attorney's fees.

At the outset of the attorney-client relationship, Brown paid Townsend $50 and they entered into a contract whereby Townsend was to receive, in addition to that amount, 40 per cent of all property or money recovered by him from the estate.

Shortly thereafter, two checks, made payable to Brown and totaling the amount of two claims against the estate, were sent to Townsend. Brown went to Townsend's office, endorsed he checks and left them with him. The record shows no demand upon Townsend at that time for any part of the payment.

Thereafter, Brown complained to the State Bar, which made a preliminary investigation, with attorney and client present. Several months later, Townsend received a check for $602.50, the amount allowed Brown for his interest in certain property. The check was payable to Brown and he refused to endorse it and to sign the legatee's receipt until there had been a decision in the disciplinary proceeding. However, after some explanations, Brown went to Townsend's office, signed the voucher and endorsed the check. At the same time, Brown returned the check which Townsend had given him some time before. The check for $602.50 was deposited in Townsend's bank account pending the decision of the State Bar.

Upon this evidence the local committee found that at the time the will of Elna Brown was presented for probate there was no agreement between Brown and the proponent of the will regarding repayment of the amount of the funeral expenses. When Townsend was retained by Brown, the findings recited, there was no conversation or understanding to the effect that the money collected on account of funeral expenses would be...