*1
Charles F. III. Term, Sept.
Misc. No. 2002. Appeals Maryland.
March 2003. *2 Hein, A. As- Raymond Bar Melvin Hirshman Counsel Attorney Maryland, sistant Bar Counsel for the Grievance petitioner. for Towson, respondent. McDonough,
Thomas BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, Argued before CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA and RODOWSKY (retired, specially assigned), JJ.
RAKER, Judge. Stein, III, respondent, a will for his
Charles F. drafted providing gift a substantial to himself where the client client did counsel in relation to not have the benefit *3 in gift. Respondent engaged impermissible the an conflict of 1.8(c). only and Rule The real issue before interest violated appropriate imposed. is sanction to be Commission, acting through Bar Attorney The Grievance Counsel, petition disciplinary filed a with this Court for action against alleging Maryland a violation of respondent Rules charged respon- of Professional Conduct. The Commission 1.8(c).1 violating dent We referred matter of Court for Judge Susan Souder the Circuit Baltimore Coun- ty findings proposed to make of fact and conclusions of law.
Judge hearing in Souder held the Circuit Court County. parties stipulation Baltimore The entered into a facts, stipulated hearing facts and upon based those court 1.8, transactions, reads, perti- 1. Rule Conflict of interest: Prohibited part, nent as follows: "(c) lawyer prepare giving lawyer A shall not an instrument or a child, person parent, sibling, spouse any related as or client, gift including testamentary gift, except substantial from a where: donee; (1) the client is related to the or (2) represented the client counsel connection gift." with the respondent agreed and to the ruling. its Bar Counsel
entered of facts: following stipulation (hereinafter Stein, ‘Respondent’ III
“1. Charles F. ‘Stein’) practice licensed law the State 1961. In the has been so licensed since Maryland and career, filed with the complaints of his two have been course against Respondent, Attorney Grievance Commission hearing. without a No sanc- both of which were dismissed Respon- any against kind been levied tions of have ever warnings no Additionally, Respondent has received dent. disciplinary violations of the rules. alleged because ‘Decedent’) (the husband Lindinger and her “2. Eleanor Stein, F. Jr. had clients and friends Charles Xaver been (the since at least the 1950s. Respondent) father of the father’s firm in 1961 and Respondent joined
“3. his The husband about that time. met the Decedent her operated husband owned and “4. The Decedent and her a social Avenue. There was bakery at 1300 Greenmount Lin- relationship between the Steins and the aspect bring would short- dingers to the extent that the Decedent visited and and such to the Steins’ offices when she cakes bakery purchase Respondent stop would their way on his home on occasion. items bakery in 1969 and the Lindinger “5. Xaver died Stein, in 1979. years later. Charles Jr. died sold several legal he did some minor Respondent “6. The believes first Lindingers prior to 1969 but believes the work for the *4 Lindinger of Mr. was a performed after the death work he Decedent on the mortgage of a held the foreclosure in 1981. Respondent work rendered bakery, which Respondent to Also in the Decedent asked the “7. process completed That was with prepare a will for her. in Mr. was nominated of the will 1982. Stein her execution of her Estate under co-personal representative to as serve time, power a At same the Decedent created that will. attorneys-in-fact. Mr. was one of the attorney. of Stein to Mr. desire indicated Stein In Decedent “8. in 1988 with process will. That concluded change to her attorney. re- of Mr. Stein power and the new will new attorney-in-fact and as co-personal representative mained as (and other at- co-personal representative although the changed. torney-in-fact) was mid-1990s, Stein called Mr. the Decedent
“9. In the in her will. ready changes more to make saying she changes to ready point at that to reduce those wasn’t She 6 months. agreed speak to writing and she Mr. Stein after that periodically in months and called her Mr. Stein ready to Lindinger Mrs. indicated she was until in 1998 at which she indicated writing new will to time reduce to changes respect both with to make substantial the desire At legatees. respect residuary specific bequests Mueller, time, Royston, McLean was of counsel to that Stein & Reid. with Mr. discussing course of her will
“10. new Stein, Lindinger Respondent to make agreed Mrs. residuary legatee the will. will, point Mr. prior
“11. At some execution of the talk to Lindinger should indicated Mrs. she Stein Stone, firm, lawyer in about the Harrison another estate his Lindinger respond. did not will. Mrs. did not Mr. Stein Lindinger necessity seeing Mrs. of an inde- indicate to pendent attorney Lindinger firm. did outside of the Mrs. not, fact, Mr. speak either to Stone an Mueller, about Royston, outside of Reid McLean & Stein, although opportu- to Mr. she did bequest have to Mr. at of of the speak the time execution nity Stone will. 27, 1998, May Lindinger the will
“12. On Mrs. executed residuary of leaving Respondent. one-third her estate to the time, Mr. At the Stein was unaware the existence Rule of 1.8. Maryland Professional Conduct will, Following Mr. had “13. the execution Stein and, on Lindinger with Mrs. one number conversations occasion, of the approximately 18 months after the execution
will, in Italy Lindinger. lunch Little with his wife and Mrs. However, will, following Lindinger the execution of the Mrs. Mr. changes never asked Stein to make to her will. life, “14. Towards Lindinger’s the end of Mrs. there attempts by made Mr. Lindinger were Stein contact Mrs. living about wills or health care directives but Mr. Stein had no in speaking Lindinger concerning success to Mrs. these attempts by neighbors matters. Several close Lin- Mrs. dinger concerning subjects the same were rebuffed. Lindinger
“15. Mrs. died on March 2001. 29, 2001, “16. On March Mrs. will Lindinger’s 1998 was probate by admitted to Register of Wills for Baltimore County, pursuant by to a Petition for Probate filed Respondent and two other individuals in will nominated co-personal representatives. to serve as life, very “17. Until near the end of Mrs. Lindinger her competent manage her own affairs and to make her own decisions.”
Judge respondent Souder concluded that violated Rule 1.8(c). The court hearing respondent prepared noted that client, will for his Mrs. to whom Lindinger, he was not related. will provided gift The a substantial from respon- the client to dent, and represented by the client was not gift. Judge counsel connection with the Souder also found any that there was no indication that improper influence or brought upon duress was to bear respondent the client anyone respondent suggested else and that had to his client many legatees gift. other alternative for the exceptions
No were party taken either to the hear ing ruling. dispute court’s The between Bar Counsel and respondent upon centers the sanction to imposed Respondent case. concedes the violation of Rule but argues appropriate reprimand. sanction is a On the hand, Bar other Counsel recommends an suspen indefinite sion, respondent’s right to seek reinstatement condi upon any residuary tioned his renunciation of interest in the bequest left to him in will prepared he for his client. primary purpose imposing discipline
The
on an
violation of the
Rules
Professional Conduct is
*6
punish
lawyer
not to
the
protect
public
but rather to
the
public’s
the
in
legal profession.
confidence
the
Attorney
Powell,
462, 474,
782,
Grievance
v.
Comm’n
369 Md.
800 A.2d
(2002).
789
Disciplinary proceedings also are
at
aimed
deter
ring
from
lawyers
engaging
other
in similar conduct.
Id. at
474-75,
however,
We have no respondent doubt that violated Rule 1.8(c), provides which lawyer that a prepare shall not instrument, including testamentary gift, a giving lawyer the any gift substantial except from a client where the is related the client or represented by where the client is independent mandatory counsel. The Rule is and contains no provision for requirement waiver of the to consult with inde pendent 1.8(c), 1.7, 1.8(a), counsel. Compare Rule with Rules 1.9(a) (b), (f), (i), (g), (allowing client to conflict waive counsel). interest consulting without with independent The (1) qualified only Rule is ways: three if gift the is not (2) “substantial,” (3) if the client is attorney, related the if the client has independent consulted with counsel. Unlike provision under the Ethical prior Considerations of our rule, provision this and prohibition is express mandatory. Respondent drafted a will for his client which he stood to gift. inherit a client, He was not substantial related to the and the client did independent not consult with counsel. The
538 truly independent required by Rule must be counsel may Rule not be satis- requirement —the of, is partner fied consultation with an who with, attorney- a close space shares or is associate 28, (Colo.1980); See, Berge, v. P.2d e.g., People drafter. Beaudry, 191 N.W.2d 844-45 State v. 53 Wis.2d (1971). question of first
Discipline for violation of
impression
the violation as most
Court. We view
in an
many potential dangers inherent
serious one. There are
beneficiary.
attorney drafting
which he or she
will
interest,
attorney’s
testify
incompetency
Conflict of
deceased,
attorney’s
of a transaction
because
testator,
ability
possible jeopardy
to influence
*7
contested,
if its
probate of the entire will
admission
undermining
of
possible harm
beneficiaries and
other
profession
public
legal
trust
confidence in the
are
and
.
985,
In re
987
dangers
Polevoy,
some
See
980 P.2d
of the
White,
Annotation,
(Colo.1999);
Jr.,
Attorneys
Philip
see also
Proceedings
Drafting
At Law:
Instrument
Disciplinary
for
or
or
Attorney-Drafter
Such as Will
Trust Under Which
Family
Beneficiary,
or Law Firm
Attorney’s
Member of
(2000).
Devisee,
Grantee,
80
597
The
Legatee, or
A.L.R.5th
out
danger
drafting
self-benefitting
pointed
will
articulately
Supreme
Disciplinary
Court of Ohio
(1996).
Galinas,
87,
St.3d
“A dependence upon, trust his client’s and advice, skill, and conduct disinterested ethical exceeds fiduciary relationships. trust and confidence found most in, dependence and trust his upon, Seldom is client’s when, attorney greater his own mortali- contemplating than ty, attorney’s advice, drafting guidance, he seeks the and a will preparation dispose skill in the his estate after among pri- are death. These consultations often the most place attorney The vate to take between an his client. feelings, dealing thoughts client is with his innermost 539 spouse, children not wish to share with his may which he of kin. and other next of a go preparation into
“Because the decisions definition, because, by inherently private, and will are so death, the will is available after his when testator will attorney any errors that the probate, for to correct offered made, negligent errors or of a they whether are may have kind, unusually dependent upon his a client is more sinister and skill when he consults the attorney’s professional advice no will have attorney to have a will drawn. The client attorney’s negligent from opportunity protect himself or infamous misconduct.” Dillon, 58, v. 58 Ohio St.3d (quoting
Id. at 1086 Krischbaum (1991)).2 1291,1296 567 N.E.2d attorney as the beneficia- drafting of wills an named
The many years. ry provoked or donee has ethical difficulties has noted that ancient Supreme “[i]n The Court Wisconsin legacy who drew the will was times under Roman law one Horan, v. 123 N.W.2d invalid.” State Wis.2d (1963). legacy is not Although jurisdictions in most such decision, governed by the Ohio Bar was 2. At the time of the Galinas 1.8(c). Disciplinary than Rule Rules and EC 5-5 which were less strict Supreme See The Court of Ohio has since reconsid- discussion infra. disciplinary violation of the rule would ered its rules and has held that a practice Previously, result in from the of law. there were attorney family member circumstances under which an could be Cook, beneficiary. Supreme v. the Ohio Toledo Bar Ass’n stated: intentions, possibility with the best risks the *8 "[E]ven exploiting when interests become so intertwined. We his client their propriety therefore reconsidered the ethical of the situation and Thus, 1, 1996, May are effective resolved that these risks untenable. Responsibility specify that we amended the Code of Professional attorney may prepare an there are no circumstances under which attorney, attorney’s family, will or trust in which the or the beneficiaries, beneficiary attorney's affiliates are unless the is named See, also, 101(A)(2). DR to the related to the client. Amendments 5 — (comments Responsibility, Code of Professional 75 Ohio St.3d XCVI amendment). regarding Today we hold that a violation of the rule 5--101(A)(2)requires attorney's DR an actual from the practice of law.” 225, 40, (2002). 43 97 Ohio St.3d 778 N.E.2d 540
void, presumption an inference or a many states create history Maryland Rules of influence.3 The undue with strong disfavor Conduct demonstrates Professional adopted was this such conduct. Rule which Court views 1986, 15, April on effective present in its form 1, 1987.4 January attorney client are viewed with between an and
3. Such transactions
great suspicion
closely
in this State. We have
and are
scrutinized
attorney
an
and a client
contexts
considered transactions between
See,
Chevy
attorney discipline
e.g.,
Chase Bank v.
matters.
other than
Chaires,
716,
(1998);
Co. v.
350 Md.
541
1.8(e)
adopted
rule
tailored to the model
closely
Rule
27,
August
1983. On October
Bar Association
American
of the Court
1983,
Committee
appointed
this
Select
ABA
Rules of
Model
Maryland
Study
Appeals
adoption
this State.
and consider their
Conduct
Professional
its
18, 1985,
presented
the Select Committee
January
On
ABA’s
Court, recommending adoption
report
1.8(c)(2)
Rule
rules,
specific modifications.
with certain
model
of Rule
recom-
The version
one such deviation.
reflects
adopted
subsequently
Committee
by the Select
mended
ABA
by the
Commission
originally proposed
by this Court
(the “Kutak Commis-
Evaluation of Professional Standards
on
sion”).
version,
only exception to the
the ABA
Under
to the client.
attorney is related
is where the
prohibition
rule’s
1.8(c),
of Rule
contrast,
version
In
the Kutak Commission
Court,
exception for
contains an additional
by this
adopted
by independent
represented
“where the client
situations
gift
suggest
a
be made
lawyer
not
to his client that
"EC 5-5 A
should
client,
accepts gift
lawyer
from his
or for his benefit.
If a
to himself
unduly
charge
he
influenced
particularly stxsceptible to the
he is
exceptional circum-
Other than in
or
stances,
the client....
over-reached
in which his client
lawyer
insist that an instrument
should
lawyer
beneficially
prepared
another
name him
desires to
by the client.”
selected
follows;
5-101(A)
Disciplinary
provided as
Rule
disclosure,
"(A)
client after full
Except with the consent of his
professional
accept employment
of his
if the exercise
shall
may
reasonably
be affected
judgment
will be or
on behalf of his client
financial, business, property,
personal
or
interests.”
by his own
jurisdictions
disciplined under the Canons
Attorneys in
have been
other
including
bequest
drafting
Ethics for
instruments
of Professional
1980);
See,
(Colo.
People Berge,
e.g.,
v.
The version the forty-five jurisdictions adopted that have a version of ABA the 1.8(c). report of Special Model Rule The the Committee 1.8(c) in adoption present which recommended the of Rule its surrounding form the “independent described debate exception: counsel” (c)
“Paragraph subjected of ABA 1.8 ... Model Rule was to vigorous analysis. Two [of members the seven member gifts type, except felt that of this committee] where the related, absolutely prohibit- client and are should be potential majority ed of for harm. A because felt that requirement representation by independent counsel adequate protection and an prohibition that absolute only impractical unnecessary would not but also that it is unfairly and would restrict a client’s donative intent.” Report of Appeals the Select Committee of the Court of Maryland Study, to ABA Model Rules of Professional (Dec. Conduct, 7, 1984). 7 11:25 Md. R. under this Even less form, however, stringent the rule prohibi- remains absolute tion against substantial transactions not covered the two exceptions. limited
Respondent suggests appropriate that sanction is a reprimand. mitigation, argues he that he was not aware of specific question; sixty-nine years rule in that of age he 1961; to Bar in presently was admitted that he is semi-retired; and that prior disciplinary he has had no sanc- Further, imposed against tion him. he concludes that there imposed was no upon undue influence the client and that the will reflects her true intent.
Respondent’s ignorance defense of of the rule is no Lawyers practice defense at all. to in this admitted State are to know the Rules of deemed Professional Conduct and have obligation conformity act in to with those standards as a requirement practice Attorney law. See Grievance
543
(2001).
390,
Jeter,
365 Md.
A.2d
v.
Comm’n
grant
portion
him a
acknowledges that the idea
Respondent
stood
Respondent
residuary
suggestion.
was his
of the
estate,
amount.
a not
$116,988.79 from
insubstantial
gain
known,
drafting a will
knew, or should have
that
Respondent
beneficiary
an obvious
was named a
created
which he
recognize the
appeared to
facial
of interest. He
conflict
Lindinger
recommending
Mrs.
conflict of interest
counsel,
counsel
albeit not
consult with other
not,
proceeded
did
firm. When she
he
respondent’s
outside
awareness
Respondent
with conscious
draft the will.
acted
conduct.
of his
nature
in this case.
an indefinite
warranted
We find
mitigat-
lack
is a
respondent’s
prior
ethical violations
While
*11
above,
factor,
reprimand.
a
As stated
ing
justify
it does
1.8(c) to
most serious.
a violation of Rule
be
we consider
public confidence
Respondent’s conduct undermines the
particularly egregious
in a
manner.
legal profession
proper
jurisdictions
found
Courts in other
have
named
they
draft
are
attorneys
for
who
instruments
which
(Colo.1999);
re
P.2d
In
In
980
985
Polevoy,
beneficiaries. See
Anderson,
(Del.1995);
McCann,
49
re
669 A.2d
Florida Bar v.
Watson,
(Fla.1994);
934
638
In re
733 N.E.2d
So.2d 29
(1992);
Case,
557,
(Ind.2000);
A.2d 613
Kalled’s
135 N.H.
607
291,
N.E.2d
v.
81
690
Disciplinary
Bandy,
Counsel
Ohio St.3d
454,
(1998);
(1997) (reprimanding attorney Jersey’s for violation of New violation). without discussion of circumstances
In addition to an suspension, urges indefinite Bar Counsel require us to as a condition of respondent reinstatement that disclaim his interest in Mrs. Lindinger’s Bar estate. Counsel any has not us directed case in the that country has required attorney an as a condition of reinstatement or as a condition to practice money continue in to return received from an estate or to renounce or disclaim a bequest. Under case, presented circumstances we decline do so. rejection bequest
Disclaimer
as a condition of
cases,
reinstatement has arisen in several Ohio
the notion
receiving support
in at least
dissenting opinions.
two
Galinas,
Disciplinary Counsel v.
majority engaged
in a
thoughtful
analysis,” with consideration to the
“cost/benefit
concerns of
Board of
the Ohio
Commissioners on Grievances
and Discipline
attorney may
have calculated the
preparing
benefits of
bequest
wills
to himself out-
weighing the risk of
receiving
disciplinary
harsh
sanction.
Nonetheless,
We are not unmindful of the for a “cost/benefit analysis” leading case, to thé violation of the rule. this however, there is no that respondent engaged evidence in such conduct, and we further residuary note one of the other legatees Lindinger’s Mrs. has bequest estate contested the in the will in the Orphan’s County. Court for Baltimore That stayed matter was pending the resolution of disciplinary issues, All including matter. the donative intent and the influence, may appropriately issue of undue in the resolved Ordinarily, other forum. that will be the proper approach. approach principles underlying This is consistent with the Rules, forth in preamble: Model as set give “Violation a Rule should not to a cause of action rise any presumption duty nor should it create that a has legal designed provide guid- been breached. The Rules are lawyers provide regulating ance to and to for structure through disciplinary agencies. They conduct are de- signed liability.” to be a basis civil suspension appropriate Indefinite is the sanction. It is hereby that: ordered Stein, III,
1. Respondent, indefinitely Charles F. sus- pended practice Maryland. from the period law This (30) thirty days shall commence from the date of entry this Opinion and Order. Respondent
2. to pay directed all costs associated with disciplinary proceedings these as taxed the Clerk of this Court. ORDERED;
IT IS SO RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL TAXED BY COURT, COSTS AS THE CLERK OF THIS TRANSCRIPTS, INCLUDING ALL COSTS OF PURSU- 16-761, ANT MARYLAND TO RULE FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTOR- NEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION F. AGAINST CHARLES STEIN, III.
CATHELL, J., concurs. HARRELL, JJ.,
WILNER dissents. CATHELL,
Concurring opinion by Judge. I concur majority with the I opinion. separately only write . Judge Although address Wilner’s dissent. I have not so dissent, in an actual always written I argued have that I believe it to be person inconsistent to find that a must be suspended danger public, disbarred because he is a to *13 ie., conditions, monitoring, at- at same time create
but clinics, etc., compliance upon at rehabilitation tendance lifted or be which, may suspension have the person a been, is, upon my position It has readmitted. or readmis- suspension request a or a lifting for the request time, should, particular look to what a sion, at that the Court lifting of the to warrant voluntarily has done person context, in that bar. It is or readmission legacy in this case improper that I will consider whether voluntarily renounced. has been it, can addressed either concerns Judge
As I see Wilner’s general thrust disagree I with the way. Accordingly, do but, is remarks, I the issue of renunciation his believe process. subsequent point at a addressed better WILNER, in which Judge, Dissenting opinion HARRELL, Judge, joins. client, Ms. for his prepared Will respondent him a to make agreed she
Lindinger. suggestion, At his in the Will provision included such residuary legatee, and he worth legacy apparently That drafted for her. that he respon- $117,000. Lindinger was not related nearly Ms. his client to seek dent, respondent did advise and at no time fact, advice; she, have such nor or did legal facts, correctly con- undisputed the Court advice. On these he violated Rule has conceded—that respondent cludes what Conduct. Maryland Rules Professional of the prohibited conflicts of interest generally with 1.8 deals (c) states: transactions. Section lawyer giving lawyer prepare
“A shall not instrument child, sibling, or parent, as person to the or related n client, including testa- gift from a spouse any substantial mentary gift, except where:
(1) donee; is related the client (2) counsel by independent represented client gift.” connection with the follow, *14 and the Court seems simple Rule to
This is a Yet, citing to follow. important it is an recognize that dissents, cases, support, also carried which only some Ohio other, that, any than more the one sanction the Court eschews Bar rejects It Counsel’s that the Rule followed. will assure that, practicing to as a condition request eminently reasonable wrongfully henceforth, legacy the he respondent renounce law respect, in her Will. With to his client and included suggested rejection. I from that dissent (1) respondent’s defense holds: what the Court
Consider (2) all”; at of Rule “is no defense that was unaware the he portion him a acknowledges grant that to respondent the idea (3) respondent suggestion; was his residuary of estate the estate, stood, stands, $116,988 “a not gain to from the and (4) amount”; or should have respondent knew insubstantial in which he was a named beneficia- drafting known that Will interest,” which he and facial conflict of ry “created obvious (5) recognize”; respondent and “acted with “appeared to nature of his conduct.” The conscious awareness the response most effective simplest response to conduct—the to say respondent, you to to if ever wish to this conduct—is State, legacy you law this renounce the practice continue yourself. wrongfully created of a many principal purpose that have said times the
We protect public, punish not to the errant sanction is trying against? it When a lawyer. protect is we are What for a prepares dispositional or other document lawyer Will Rule, and, in violation of the includes himself herself client beneficiary, actual under which the as a circumstances disposition may to that never be known. As agreed client here, often will have before the matter even the client died and, light, obviously not avail- comes to because the client regarding all testily, able to evidence the client’s true intent usually secondary mind If and state of will then be evidence. be, challenge, may presumption which there is a there arise, fiduciary duty may presumption but it is a breach easily through testimony is often rebutted friendly lawyer. may no lawyer and witnesses to the There actually personal knowledge of what occurred. one else Meanwhile, here, up litigation while one as the estate is tied mind with the decedent’s state of and or more courts wrestle estate exercised undue influence. The whether resolved; legacies until the matter is are cannot be settled delay costs lawyers’ litigation as fees and other reduced mount. expedient of simple
All of this can be avoided violating as a minimal sanction for requiring lawyer, Rule, If disgorge lawyer wrongfully what the created. bring them no lawyers know that a violation of the Rule will Rule, gain, they financial will have no incentive to violate that, else, public. is what will In a protect above all *15 sense, upon which courts have fash- it is the same basis Fifth, Fourth, exclusionary rule violations of the ioned Yes, overzealous law enforcement and Sixth Amendments. may rights possibly who citizens’ Constitutional officers violate responsible damages, criminally liable for civil or even be held cases, kinds of sanc- egregious for their conduct in but those against intrusions. It is the protects tions are not what such knowledge produce that violation will no benefit —that the unusable. by reason of the violation will be evidence uncovered applied simply should be here: remove approach The same violation. gain from the achieved in which a is not I can conceive situations necessary, of the benefit will really where renunciation suffice, By rejecting renun- perhaps along reprimand. sanction, however, has permissible ciation as even a the Court suspension, for a opt created for itself real dilemma—either in circum- may unnecessary which be and far too drastic some stances, may entirely for a which be opt only reprimand, two, presum- In choosing too lenient. between the the Court ably potential cannot either amount of the be influenced benefit, swamp for that would create a of inconsistent deci- sions, or.by circumstances under which the benefit was created, that for the Court seems determined leave It has from its arsenal the one litigation. collateral removed that, nearly always appropri- will my judgment, sanction ate. that, case, until this we have not seen
It is curious situation, situa- yet now case—a similar we have second many I cases are out there pending. wonder how other tion— firm to make a simply that we do not see. The Court needs so, and, opportunity It to do and effective statement. has the that my judgment, wrong seizing opportunity. it is joins Judge HARRELL has authorized me state he dissenting opinion. in this