*2 Attorney’s making beer for use of In Error him- to District Court self, family, guests, sale, (Comp. for United Nebraska; for District of violation Prohibition Act of National Thomas Judge. C. Hunger, seq.) of of- §St. et 10138% court, as an fice and was officer of the matter proceed- of the disbarment apart merely affair, from his ings against Frank Respondent W. Bartos. professional duties, but miscon- constituted disbarred for years (13 138), three F.[2d] duct as an officer the court. brings and he Reversed, error. with direc- tion. <@=>38Attorney Attorney client 7. inten- — tionally, knowingly, willfully, persistent- Flansburg Leonard A. and Herbert W. violating ly Constitution, federal is not Baird, Lincoln, both Neb., plaintiff proper person practice to law in federal error. courts. Don Stewart, W. Lincoln, (Les- Neb. attorney intentionally, knowingly, an Where Dibble, Lincoln, ter Neb., C. on brief), willfully, tution persistently and the violates the Consti- States, he is not a proper for defendants in error. person practice to in the federal courts. Before KENYON, LEWIS and Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, Judge. District <@=>54 Attorney and client has dis- —Court discipline an cretion thereof officer tending bring disrepute, and, LEWIS, Judge. Circuit act if court into discipline attorney’s suspension involves pleaded guilty charge error making practice, hearing he is entitled to and beer in his home for the use of himself judgment. family. guests present they When were were discipline attorney Though gener- glass usually offered a and it was served ally proceeds theory that on he is not a fit way meals, his home. person occupy position, further it is within discipline sound of- sales, discretion court no There were traffic of kind. thereof, or other- ficer whether punishment plea imposed. hisOn was He wise, tending bring for an act into court good standing a member the Bar in discipline disrepute, to make such a warn- practice had a substantial Fed- both with the others trifle duties im- posed and if that torney court, as an officer Having courts. eral and State suffered discipline taking involves from at- imposed, he punishment was cited to show period for a limited why he should not be cause disbarred from at' the bar he entitled to the United States District practice in Court court, judgment of the but court’s discretion lightly arbitrarily. be exercised Nebraska; is not and after a District REPORTER, 2d SERIES FEDERAL
72i ways been thereof less thief oath. Crimes meaning its alike malum destroy grand those who commit in that enjoy grounds it should be 335 clearly it acter. taken on prior punish onies, that his with ther was clare it to that and, second, hearing should be This he will be derelict in the court has no famous. Nor future' der ents or to other members of the If claim offense 13 F. pears any tendency fessional conduct barred States. Both [1] cannot se. subjective malpractice We take it The either acts as commission it It was [Comp. ground Constitution and he is of he is a is an (2d) infamous conviction is found, prohibitum; him for a They demonstrate their unfitness to legislative The fact that a statute purpose disbarment on two dereliction is life of members of the learned District charged capacity the fact that on which had ever been a written exclude them from petit debased other admission to privileges affirmed,but if both are untenable made that considered is not ground 138: latter grand demonstrated in eases in which a not a felony (Criminal old reversed and vacated. St. § 10509,]), and hence not in disclose the inherent it was a violation nor only misdemeanor, was the convincing depraved mind, larceny grounds whieh offense. crimes, phrase First, worthy show involved moral involved meaning regulatory man, unless period unprofessional a heinous nature have al action impeaching moral .and attempted by laymen a sound order was made. expressly well malpractice imprisonment gravest petit larceny, implicated involves the facts he has act malum in practice, theft, those that are of belief even under accused Judge they yet it is order was made has on the turpitude, commission of the whieh moral profession. taken the order three grounds, challenged ever been persuasive of the United whether it be be such as to principle offenses, Bar, to be a witness. It based his or- law, may classify —to restricted to claimed and because Bartos; court, subject. or stated, dis- conduct, is found in found that years. turpitude; Bar. from the character, does over the the oath and that lawyers Code, § for acts charged regard proven unpro- se, malum longer turpi- guilty from —fel char here, here. Nei- His nor de cli- ap- No A 26 L. Ed. ing P. general moral pitude.” reason property does contended with character peaching witness. has between sarily imply it, and there again said spect.” has penal show a evidence records derous words accused them pitude. well liams v. little The 129. In State Taylor, not such Ann. peace, moral ter, because, forsooth, tude. essarily by (D. mony, Conviction or the violation of a *3 praved in mind of opinion the conclusion C. S. S. States 1054, 417, A. W. A.) “The “They In that case it was “The See, also, bawdy houses, been convicted of an been convicted of a mere court against moral not, be considered so Spring Co. v. city actionable, credit offense not infamous Cas. 326: Redway It malum 570, 571, but turpitude. (C. 5 1 why assaults, (C. depraved 21 grand C.) United States offense of selling intoxicating liquor general The S. Ct. commission F.(2d) 637; impute offenses as said: ordinance in McGovern it is at they —statute C. violations C. turpitude, in a less ought page 57, 84 it was offense R. A. A.) v. A.) not necessarily so of one who an infamous character. 935, it is and is were not actionable value generally legal moral F. is because Gray, Neal v. United 4 Henry, to be convictions for violations Knowlton, sense, contended that 147 policy, city petit (N. 29 606; prohibiting said: infamous F.(2d) or no se, of crimes malum in se sense make than said: corrupt held without moral parte degraded character of Haussener v. (C. * * * 31 ordinance. S.) and so the consensus infamous crime F. larceny 98 larceny perpetrator involve moral tur- Smith, 15 Glover Vt. very error $7.00, illegal and is no distinction imply 426, breaches of the Conviction. C. 207. That court Mo. statute —deduces purpose . words 884, Wilson) crime tends Idaho, 89; nature, 3A.) crime, misdemeanor, 292, be consistent n act involves 240, frequenting 429, do does neces- in this re- and it was moral tur- States In re v. United a contract bad.” U. his testi- the true the slan charging admit that but one who not Vt. * law are stealing 755, per charac 244,11 involv- F.(2d) 114 of im- 430, is de S. a bad void. (cid:127)* Wil Kir 104, nec- 49, (C. se. 99 U. * 8 tude, less so when viewed morals and ley, But when into consideration. illegal 442, 27 L. Ed 238. voked pealed. The are victions therefor could not es, ards hibita, lawfully, place possession offense ing fact of their that whenever a ber of burg v. seemed to Black on entered act be an act moral in such They are also of crimes, those pitude in such a contract.” er it al,” the fixes the moral held that violations of do not say owes purpose crimes malum in definite And keeping “Offenses “It is “Moral itself, rules of the civil sporadic phrase: illegal liquors. An Arkansas that the convicted so the civil law fixes —none of a acts, to his classed as private sales eases, as an additional Ark. punishable as there 'trial then, same involve meaning, Brown, malum itself, regardless of Intoxicating Liquors, as place, illegally transporting to be observed people and their phrase. give with adjudicated medicine and with being punishable at turpitude implies something contract order fellowmen long others. not noted impeaching court in principle phrase baseness, vileness, “Moral against and unsound being positively after said: and social Supreme intoxicants, keeping much turpitude.” in se. moral felonies physician changes 112 S. unlawfully moral that it shifts and fluctuates periods se, no inherent its It intent to quoting In Fort v. BARTOS v. illegality country. U. revocation was malum weight to a solely turpitude law. The infamous offenses and be added State prohibition says prohibitory There is description mala above, turpitude, they W. turpitude peiialty. involve moral restated court liquor in the moral stand- surgery shall duties which like, are phrase of time are taken is convicted the commission be shown for turpitude witness. But it perhaps unconsciously, we as a the definition selling intoxicat- statute society dispose of not the are lies tbe definite prohibited.” City This immorality in private rights no moral laws, quoted common law. think, which doing liquor from cites a num- UNITED fact wheth- line question prohibitum Fort’s liquor laws hence con- only in the determined making of follows: his license The defined to physician depravity statutory provided liquor centuries Fort Parkers- statute, such has no and moral; Brink- a man gener- doubt- it was mean- be turpi- S. it un- court pro- tur- cas- im- ap- F.(: re- as STATES DISTRICT id) P. evidently fense a classification inconsistent gress intended a violation of the Volstead Act to be lations of reply: Mont. al fixed nothing more conclusions Underwood v. Commonwealth gress being merely malum within the definition Of a N. C. malum son, intoxicating liquors, force what it um that law is. The Master made wine in no must involved turpitude’ commensurate with guished small different notions R. 1042. above-cited tinction tains punishable police ed aside a fundamental differentiation. §St. (Ky.) at common old, When this rule turpitude, reaching his dissent in exactly App. “The offense The District To this Justice Robb “We “It think prohibitum.” good. 103 Or. as which of the National within 10138% guide this: quantity having specifically turpitude.” 105 W. law, Case, supra, has officer, in se in which same penalty from the seems are sought moral D. C. it intended had a 93 S. In that us, is for the conclusion as to which it authorities the class of crimes law, and those which are definite principle it would have affixed a et had been than mere conceives opposite common turpitude, clearly 362, F.(2d) Judge much concerned with the seq.). The as for a to be made between crimes charged against the P. E. attorneys charged 151; moral, positive this there Rudolph COURT Bieber, expressed by said: a by Congress. such case 847; Prohibition Act meaning. The Court to were different prohibitum, cited marriage that the State v. must at all times be course.” convicted of sets itself dedueible law, intent; Rudolph, misdemeanor, civil law as distin- convincingly 121 Kan. was forced ignored, declared is without misdemeanor, majority opinion, disbarred, State v. Edmun crime civil does support fixed illegal 487, give Rudolph's to which Johnson, Cafficotte, words judges but it Justice feast merely rule of the an' Had Con- up and Con- with to the of- a with 40 it meaning appellee a viola- penalty (Comp. It con- sale to east retired power, offense States, and in adopt- to en- ‘moral of his A. made *4 Robb what come mor- mal- -that vio dis- act do. it REPORTER, 2d FEDERAL SERIES Many persons holding officeunder Federal offenses involved courts said the required we State to take addition to what constitutions are already and dis- oath of the Unit- have said Constitution in criticism (article agreement plain seems conclusions, 6). those ed States oath, is ob- vastly attorney, like the oath of an added that those cases different were par- ligatory only conduct; official in facts from the facts as to this ease. traffic, not intended to charged engaged in could have been and was ties were efficacy non- repeatedly any application have to or over repeated had made sales were convicted, bootleg- purely conduct and acts of they were characterized official required maintaining gers, them, some nature. contend that the some To is at all ob- prosecut- by one tiger,” “blind or more was article Legislature prose- it was to ligatory officerwhose official on a member State capacity in his violations, fugitive acting cute one was while in his individual published libel, social, private life, seems whol- a criminal and all business and ly give (Bieber) one seem to have had that condition irrational. We thus unable to irresponsibility any weight Bartos, cause client’s contention that charged against ought doing entrusted to them. him to have been broke the obligation was an able dissent from of his official oath Bieber’s Case there *5 majority holding there was support the that to the Constitution of the United the. turpitude, gist the moral which was of the States. contention, charge possession applied issue to But there is broad an that attorney owes it to and only. subject circumspect Speaking the Bar to in his habits and on the of admission to professional pri parte Garland, practices the bar the court in in both his 333, 378, (18 life, indirectly 366), Wall. directly said: vate so as to not or “Their or exclusion is not reflect discredit on the adminis admission or criticism justice; power. of mere ministerial It exercise tration that conduct * * * judicial power. might is conceivably the exercise of had- have this Bartos therefore, It is a deprived pernicious of which he can the court act tendency, by the judgment power of the ed court, for within its and did not abuse its dis professional delinquency.” making cretion in order. When comes There is professional no claim malpractice, unprofessional conduct, delin- quency. power It is admitted that had offending Bartos con- of the court over the himself ducted purpose an honorable member member is pro of the conceded. Its is to twenty-six Bar for years, public, tect the that court and other act members But, which he was disbarred already was the first of the Bar. pointed accusa- as we have brought against tion ever him; out, and for not á case of kind. that The reasons private stated we think that was life, profes not a moral social and not of delinquency eyes the civil com- impor sional character. The distinction is reasonable, just mon law. A tant; fair and rule and if the act does not disclose moral subject on this found in turpitude (Utah) perpetrator Jones rendering him 805: unfit to entrusted with the confidences and “The rule as stated in 6 of the profession, duties C. J. is that it cannot appropri attorney ately will not be be made the disbarred for basis of miscon- disbarment. professional his inquiry duct capacity that kind»of a case unless would be out such conduct is infamous or side the rules very gross.” of law and in the uncertain field As ground purely second course, duty, obligation, all —of men support should parte and defend character. Ex Wall, Constitu- U. S. tion, National State, Ed. presents and the laws made an ex pursuant aggravated thereto. But we treme and do case on not conceive the facts. He attorney. that the oath Of an imposes charge against any ad- him obligation ditional for disbarment respect him in was that he was a member of acting he is private prisoner when his a mob which took a capacity. jail from him profession gives hung necessarily His him the court house a better door. The court understanding organic participated found that he than law oth- most atrocious have, may murder; yet, majority ers but his opinion, oath is an official oath him his disbarment, it binds in his which sustained it is official said: action. engaged proceeding purpose When so he stands on the “The same plane citizens, punishment, purpose as other no but for higher, lower, preserv- no legal rights ing justice the courts official obligations. different in min- n ney.” ought never him a ing hundred thousand source Undoubtedly, ways istration of He is never cases honorable study. fair of several thousand that derived from expect to priving having Mr. Justice Field tos was vate life of members of ing its decision entail I guilty judgment the solutely versed with exclude purpose. disbarment and restore order was made is ment by Judge to state them. demonstrate their unfitness to capacity somewhat with some concur in member of The trial Notwithstanding We revert to “To disbar an KENYON, First. Second. out the distinction privileges learning proof to be to be exercised with admitted to the bar be has no should poverty punishment of the was a such a them from him this my necessary to character misconduct, permitted charged receive inflicting unless great LEWIS that the order profession.” different of the reasons family. That the offense with which court filed persons acts conclusion is based direction to be profession be set regulatory power That the Bar. misdemeanor action of the court will be upon general practice Circuit emolument. anof what they from his one shown unfit wholly ability, he attorney is to inflict such a on exercised dollars. To BARTOS v. grounds dollars a unfit capital. aside, Surely the tremendous himself and destitution capital we be exercised unless two be such protect a written which the attorney, said: to which conclusion between profession. Judge (concurring). breach of the oath is one that may be to dissent, vacate the order of facts in said insufficient for that be member expressed therefor, only after party *6 punishment practice great severest character. propositions, but do equivalent practice in them. affect Bar, for acts in that it seems If of one except year, equal It supra, the as to over the longer enjoy caution; and possessed opinion UNITED after the clearest disbar him a and cannot disbarment reasonably the stand- announced as, — court and an income an attor- ought al- years of error as him the or more part pleaded proper disbar- ple, clearly should point- often agree upon clear case, and Bar- viz.: pri- bas- our ab- de- F.(2d) re- on (27 STATES DISTRICT COURT ranted violations perience law. It is a thority man.” inhere be an offense ground ing manufacture of man years. involves it as follows: beverage purposes is an act rule tude, owes to his eral, contrary olation at-the mous. trary ed of port roll for action on his will en Wall, a term felony deliberate act of in the als, depravity.” of an as an act of struck imports convicted States and which Bartos took practice large an act which is not Well-established profession, “Inherent words, and to demean himself social duties Phrases, be taken. and to when it is done private bar, necessary off expressing in favors having If convicted of a misdemeanor of the National Prohibition the Court “Turpitude” fraud or quantity an act felony gross malpractice Constitution of the United of the act are such duty certain U. had or who has fellowman, phrase describing order be, because he disregard 552), accepted society baseness, First roll as of S. actions; baseness or and social duties which a man turpitude. a well defined “ between He been are that he intoxicating liquor; that felony, or of misdemeanor ‘Moral which 265, 273, dishonesty, for conduct unlawfully view Constitution wrongful said: “The it will depravity Series, p. was not leading grounds broken say in upon accepted intoxicating character.” The court according obligating disbarment vileness, uprightly shameful view as to he owes to his also be struck off the of his or man and general, turpitude’ course, said: “If defined Webster that all many years between vileness Moral customary has of Nebraska admission ease of or leading by this unlawful offenses, good acts. S. of moral the same course for disbarment meaning manufacturing society qualities rendered infa- in profession. gravely intentional weight of dishonesty been convict- whatever the or turpitude is wickedness; him to the man.” intentional liquor for customary demeanor, is defined depravity man and regularly refers Act the first had private will is rule of accord- fellow- princi- Words affect- in turpi- which parte three mor- war- gen- con- sup- tak- said au- ex- vi- be It REPORTER, 19 FEDERAL 2d SERIES opinion quoted in its from Lord Mansfield made. He was charged never with or con- punishment; as follows: way any “It victed of violation of the Volstead Act up but the court in cases exercise dis that time. nothing There is in the rec- cretion, except whether man whom have for ord impair this affair to way merly standing proper person admitted is a to be con community. The offense tinued the roll not.” See C. J. Bartos was possibly the mildest that could State, Gillman v. 165 Ala. be So. committed under the National Prohibition Cyc. 912; Act, City Brinkley, Fort v. were it not for the large quantity of 400, 112 beer so Ark. made. this, W. Save for which arouses suspicion None the eases some cited trial court as to the faith of the government its it its evidence that was for the use of family against guests, brief is where and his offense Nation- I do not think it would be al claimed that Prohibition Act consisted of the there manufac- was moral turpitude, as in one’s that term is intoxicating liquor ture own understood in home involved in thé purpose course, sole act. Of serving it to the seven quarts fam- hundred ily guests. beer would Almost all of the eases indicate capacity considerable deal with no his family, sales. case can be guests found numerous think large capacities, possible the facts but it are at all similar where those was to used presented. period over an here extended time. Eighteenth prohibits Amendment adoption Eighteenth liquor, manufacture of intoxicating as well Amend- ment and National general as the sale. It is matter Act knowl- Prohibition were brought by'a. general about however, intoxicating edge, liquors pubEe sentiment Equor that the traffic should many country made in of the homes abolished outlaw, made an and that use of the traffic guests, itself evil, was a moral but can it be for sale. That is said that the a violation of course general public conviction is prohibitum, —a malum malum use crime Equor in the home is such If, however, gross se. in the home had and fla- grant offense as to evidence passage Eigh- been baseness obtained before and de- pravity and social teenth Amendment the National Prohibi- duties which a man owes to his fellow kept not, man? If tion Act could be and there then how can manufacture Equor possession crime there for the if home for such regarded? sobe “personal consumption of the owner thereof There *7 no inherent immorality in family residing the act of dwelling and his Bartos. and It trafficking was not a liquors. guests It did of his bona fide when not entertained upon honesty reflect integrity Comp. as him a citi- § therein.” U. Stat. S. 10138%t. zen. The court evidently Further, under the considered that the National Prohibition act was not such as to him for private dwelling Act warrants to search a unfit or make him except untrustworthy filing handling the cannot issued of the an clients, of his business perma- that affidavit such residence is it did used for nently disbar him intoxicating suspended liquor. the sale of him Therefore a privilege from his having intoxicating liquor as an party his home that period years. court for of three It protected the National under Prohibition any general avail little enter into Act from search thereof unless there discussion of review of the evidence sales. act itself in this numerous cases which re- re- late recognizes phases to some spect some moral of distinction this matter. I cite be- for liquor convenience in possession of for use future reference a num- tween in the (also ber of text-book home, liquors references) them bear- and for sale. question on the turpitude” “moral Equor mere use of in the home has not of attorneys.1 opin- disbarment amI regarded generally any been ele- immorality or turpitude. ment of 1 parte Secombe, 9, Ex 15 L. 19 How. Ed. the there is a While manufacture technical 565; Bradley Fisher, (13 Wall.) v. 80 U. S. law, the the use of it in the 646; home 335, Powers, 20 Ed. Brede v. violation L. 263 U. 4, 8, 132; Keegan 68 L. 129; re 44 S. Ct. Ed. is not condemned the National Prohibi- (C. C.) 31 F. v. Haussener United Act. A.) F.(2d) (C. 884; Rudolph States C. 4 v. The evidence shows Mr. Bartos manufac- States, 362, F.(2d) App. United 55 D. 6 C. beer in 487, tured the the basement of his 1042; Peck, home for 40 State A. R. v. Conn. 447, 274, 1915A, 663, L. R. Ann. Cas. A. A. himself, family guests. the There 1917B, 227; Sanford, 750, In re Kan. any is no he ever evidence that sold it or 1053; Bieber, 536, P. State 121 Kan. gave away, any no such claim is P. 875; 803; (Utah) re Jones Hors- 249 P. ion that involving moral meanor used, with that cating more bar of this court to law. The oath taken the state court or sold does decision as the state respondent imposed penalties for the violation. 151; Hightower enacted not be called nor 152; 165 based its Underwood N. Taylor, Rep. 239; Black port these constitutions.” Pippin demean themselves regards practitioner at the bar, uisite erately facture of Nebraska, provisions ley the act 1272; People Amos, 208 S. meanor Cary, which is pension or an officer of the case sons E. The trial oath to Constitution Constitution S. W. United States and of his v. can he be said to be violated it. This which arises Fairfield than conviction of a based on defined and than the 189; 146 attorneys 246 State, v. violates W. States, the solemn oaths professional apparent part order the act 184; Ex Minn. Intoxicating Liquors, Conn. intoxicating liquor at the time State, made Ill. People pursuance v. Commonwealth guests 563; committed disbarment of follows: “In this Nebraska. The court stated one reason parte Burr, County good well as the 19 Ala. v. 299, mere Lotto in part forbade also 80, 11, v. take of the United States and Meyerovitz, the manufacture court. turpitude as that understood 'of ex obligates constitute character *8 the state of Nebraska and State, demeanor relationship 92 N. E. 22 therefore 177 BARTOS v. uprightly the United States Constitution and laws obligates home commission v. State Bar ex rel. the status presents phase misconduct, such as be- upon admission to manufacturing error was bad demean- App. Ala. A. N. W. Disbarment possessed the unlawful when he both delib- 9 Wheat. There are other rea- Constitutions Chicago 441,13 these constitutional Cr. R. 73 Tex. Constitution upon turpitude felony offense, attorneys, 613, has them to 263, rel. 857, 278 Ill. (Ky.) by an I am in accord. (Tex. Constitution 801, who had taken the use state, continue sec. 383. taken to case there misdemeanor to' admission of L. Fessenden v. UNITED 73 So. Bar 96 So. ground of a misde- 529, 138 Am. or a misde- support illegal 9 A. L. Civ. A.R. Bartos according 105 and laws Wall.) attorney, of F. for sus- support 356, term Ass’n v. 6 It can- intoxi- one manu- 19 F.(3d> of L. App.) situa- vate character. S. away sup- as a 767; req- 937; 340; 258, dis- opportunity the officer 116 Ed. W. St. R. STATES DISTRICT COURT C. is Cas. .traying Wernimont were it continued it tain for disbarment in as said able Ass’n, 101 behavior. both in character §§80 conduct appeals ner whose office deprived in numerous cases. of Or. declared selors election mere ministerial ‘are not sessing should be classified and propriate it is held forming ered They ceedings ‘Attorneys intrusted or their exclusion is Court of [2] fraud such admission Prom Prom In Re admission Bar’s judicial legal profession An prescribed by (18 concerning it.” 6 they possess opinion by 134 W. are 1913D, 1156; during and 81. appointment may, thereof, are duties Seventh Circuit application in Ex sufficient the confidence of which attorney by engaged upon of it for misconduct ascertained and that attorneys Appeals N. to attention Ex Niles, judicial officers of delay litigation On United order, upon Ark. elected power, and has relate parte good behavior, duty officers of the parte Garland, ‘they appointment parte the State ex rel. Little Rock officers of the United tends holding The Circuit be heard has been afforded.’ judicial 366): “Attorneys (22 courts, counselors,’ 48 How. Prac. legal learning * power. of New York court, functions.’ subject officers.of Garland, almost L. Ed. would constitute a Robinson, Ex or to alienate judgment ** learning. They It requisite not Cooper 142 S. W. appointed court. Weeks on his office very and the admission to practice evidence bring reproach quite recently exercise of their parte nature. And hence C. “and in fact Radford, designated with taking courts exclusively It is the exercise 205): Court of J. § court, client, practicing counselors Their admission 4 Wall. of such officers. justly and can quote: said that so ” the court for admission. Ditchburn, 32 suggested been 86 U. S. exercise of a propriety, should and fair qualifications latter of the court (N. Y.) during good of held of frivolous admitted as 47, p. becomes court, “The Attorneys, the matter 168 Mich. hold their their 333, 378, Appeals so become States; to consid- officers favor enter at law called court, cause order coun- upon Ann. man- after judi- 588; and, pro- pos- held per- Bar 246, pri- (19 ap- be ” REPORTER, 2d 19 FEDERAL SERIES Edmunson, bring bar and profession eial 243, 103 Or. tends to officers. State v. public Burr, 593, law into 619; 19 Neb. distrust. State v. Justice 261; Bradley parte Wall, 28 N. of Law W. Petition Board U. 265, 274, 2 (Wis.) 569, (27 552), Examiners 210 N. United S. W. Ed. (C. says: “Of all classes C.) States Green 85 F. Weeks on professions, v. Attorneys, lawyer sacredly is most p. uphold bound to servant; laws. He is and for their sworn [3,4] attorney dig The office one him, world, all men repudiate nity fidelity to both to the laws, trample override the to them under imperative. court It and to clients is carries foot, ignore very society, and to bands of duty to assist the administration argues recreancy position office, justice. right appear to conferred to pernicious and sets a example one, for to the insubor- suitors at the bar is not an absolute dangerous body dinate and elements of the although parte Garland, supra, as said Ex politic. fidelity manifests a It want something it “is mere indul more than a system government of lawful which he has gence, court, pleasure revocable at uphold preserve.” sworn to Legislature. or at the command of the Bradley Fisher, 335, 13 Wall. deprived he can (20 646), says: obli court, “The moral or court attorneys impliedly assume, if gatiqn which professional delinquency.” As.an officer of they by express up do not declaration attorney obligation the court an take is under themselves, when are admitted to intentionally law-breaker; im be a to bar, merely is not obedient to the Con justice; the administration of not to pede vi laws, stitution and but to maintain at all States; olate the Constitution the United respect justice times the courts due to bring he of the court of which is an judicial officers.” disrespect; ficer into en to hinder the In Planters’ Bank popularize Hornberger, forcement of law or the breach 4 Cold. (Tenn.) 566, 571, the court thereof. It is breach said: “An official attorney apart is man intentionally bring reproach law, set ex- upon the pound, persons him, to all profession court, who seek to alienate favorable land, relating high public opinion prop- interest of and when he erty, things liberty, end, these and life. To this is li- guilty does he is permitted charge censed though even misconduct his acts be not mis his serv- ices.” turpitude. The demeanors merely People ex profession of at bar is not rel. Brown, Skelton v. money. P. instrumentality making Colo. There court said: “When grants this court reciprocal obligations person duties and in license to a practice law, and every volved. individual in, coming in contact with the licensee When Bartos was admitted and enrolled professional capacity has expect in the United States District Court Ne- that he will demean scrupulous himself with braska he took an oath that as an propriety as one high commissioned to a advocate of the District Court honorable office.” United States for that he would de- District In Bar uprightly City mean Association according himself Boston v. 168 Mass. Greenhood, 169,187, and that he would N. E. says: important “It United States. That that the oath was not a gesture. of office attorneys He taken mere became on admis- an officer of the every to the bar court. While sion should not be considered and obliga- citizen is under *9 by empty tion to treated those who take it as an the Constitution and the laws States, Nothing of the United is in the life people there form. of the more difference be- obligations the attorney deeply tween of an concerns their ad- welfare than that the respect lay justice of the attorney citizen. ministration of our The The courts. given practice to in the high court and integrity standard prescribed which is charge to fees for his services. He stands as our Constitution and our of- exemplar an of lawful conduct in his ficers of our com- courts should be maintained.” munity. willfully If he violates the Consti- The attorney misconduct of an outside [5-8] tution and the laws of his country, professional which as his dealings may be such as special an officer the court it is duty his justify to to disbarment. 2 p. C. L. § R. brings he support, administration of law and eases there cited. A court is under disrepute. into and the courts He compulsion likewise permit to leper ap a moral to maintain fails to the ethical standards bar, of the pear-at though even there nobe ques-i roll, bar. torneys. Although, therefore, trifle the disbarment of an willfully, court, he is ney as take the extreme course However, regarding lightly in the sound the bar pline gives party proper shown icate duct. to show our vate affair attorney ceeds bring conduct as an officerof the the court ish stitution ter the abide ney further from person such who ties. tion er quate out the facts, period the result torney an officer Chamber, 34, 39, States. [9,10] If the discipline In the matter of Francis attorneys as a warning name from the United States established we must visit him raised for two with the duties discipline involves notice Selling Nor we are the court into to his Queen's The very not be party may be to court there occupy by contempt proceedings willful, If have otherwise, hold seeking arbitrarily. at is, officer of his continue to be a right to is it misconduct at entitled to a such fact should apart Constitution theory offense the United States and the years the court vigilance the same. bound so to deal with the attor- judicial of course, law Ed. act of Bench taking oath of office persistently all similar admitted to such evidence in- this record had officer such Radford, practice deliberate, intentional ease out warning from his admission to character intentionally, knowingly, from 28th practice rolls BARTOS v. UNITED STATES that he not a fit man to court. the court. position, yet, for an act which said: “These conduct that he will imposed upon to disrepute, from him for a limited discretion awith thereof, capacity. dealings English was Ann. Cas. to suspending of professional for a Discussing hearing law he Court render him an unfit 243 U. S. protecting persons striking of a court to to others. Wheth- as a violates court. at the bar of the practice. professional of an member of such wholly punishment and his in the courts appear February Blake, limited whether an at- violating. generally pro- by the others not to other at- with merely pri- If that disci- warning, we and make discretion be exercised error in dis- ord contains a he is not thereon and 1917D, It was mis- the United attorney Exchequer him it is with- Where the court shall not an attor- the mat- divorced tends 3 Court striking bar, duty as miscon- pointed when a period, certif- off the While 19 í\<2a) violas last.” 37 S. pun- Con- ade- du- He acting at a thought sufficient three ment should be set aside. while Bartos as a ously pointed out, posed in the anas belief tutes technical violation of the therewith. tured liquor merely liquor violating liquor manufacturing necessary matter and that cur periors administered under all the circumstances was forcement understand that suspension rant himself or would the United only pressed Bartos for bar of that stance. Bartos This concurring and not for tradiction extent government as would tion of Judge did reprimand seems to me my judgment concur In TRIEBER, prohibition not therefore from wish to add to his being of the law relative to years. circumstance DISTRICT manufactured in manufactured for seem rather LEWIS, my opinion an punishment. abuse its discretion justify their own any to discuss in this case what consti- conclusion which it thereof, prohibition direct there his common States, three amendment to officers not, opinion available to search ’that court, although the law was violated sale. of the court would have been homes for law opinion. that awas robs phase District testifies, *10 but an abuse many light enforcement officers of law years manufactured for the severe violation strong, mitigating would instructions COURT draws reversal as announced lawyer I should severe. have mitigates that he was informed was not to be no he did homes of knowledge not in it of itself, technical one for which beer were all, officersled him the Judge The severe from seems, person home for the -use of for that opinion a distinction I Judge and there is no con- sale; enforced.” knew consumption there, the Constitution fully because “I could for their own all feel not think he However, home for use and for a period of the discretion im- persons punishment as I have practicing no interference his oath of order of disbar- KENTON, prohibition the reasons ex- therefore, from no search war- should be en- the trial court that, enforcing (concurring). reason con- homes where concur in the that it is un- be manufac- dealing offense and punishment punishment suspending turpitude home enforced. informa- their su- who had between whether circum- It is a always previ- to thte was a I at the office use, rec- en- REPORTER, FEDERAL 2d SERIES knowingly rolled tentional of the Mr. who vio- violation attorney, Bartos. nation, prohibition of lates, only but also a Some law of enforcement officers provision. publicly person constitutional A who com- stated the manufacture of use, although not, my opinion, containing pro- is a beer for one’s mits offense such desiring alcohol, hibited of as one amount not a man such character of violation many of the legal profession newspapers published become member be, This, as is so statements to the same ably should stated in the effect. Judge of evidence establishes, KENYON. caused Bartos Mr. admission, beer, is after honest belief If, conduct manufacture applied by making that he did not violate that, had it been established when he the law guests. the beer for his bar, for admission would own use and his the court enrollment, duty believe, by Judge have denied it is the of as stated KENYON Keegan, concurring in his People opinion, reprimand to revoke it. would Rep. 274, have been punishment upon a sufficient Colo. Am. S.t. facts (cid:127)it was said: case. “A moral character is es one requisites sential to admission to the bar state, DIERKS LUMBER thereby and the tenure office & COAL CO. v. BROWN. during good conferred is behavior; and when Appeals, Eighth Circuit Court of Circuit. appears, upon investigation, full that an May 9, 1927. /good has forfeited his char No. 7562. acter,’ it becomes the the court to re @=>121 Negligence (2) ipsa authority gave voke the 1. him his ad of “res —Doctrine loquitur” neg- presumption raises rebuttal mission.” ligence. To see, the same effect in addition to the ipsa loquitur” doctrine of “res raises Judge KENYON, authorities cited Matter presumption negligence, a rebuttable fact Wool, McClaugher arising Mich. State v. surrounding because the circumstances that, explana- the accident are such unless an ty, 33 W. Va. 10 E. re Del given, tion be reasonable conclusion ano, Rep. 555; People 58 N. H. Am. that the accident was due omission de- Baker, 66,142 N. E. Ill. A. L. R. duty. fendant’s 737. definitions, [Ed. Note.—For other see Words Phrases, Series, argument learned counsel for First' Second Res Ipsa Loquitur.] that, plaintiff error this constitutional Negligence @=>121(2) Act, ipsa amendment and the National Prohibition 2. of res lo- —Rule quitur of plaintiff does not relieve from burden carry enacted to this amendment to the Con- showing negligence. effect, being into stitution violated men ipsa loquitur Rule res does.not relieve high standing in respective communi- plaintiff negligence showing from burden of ties, deplorable excuse. It is that this although proof, presump- shift burden arising fact, is a and unfortunate that such violators the circumstances under may rule sufficient to take the case to the frequently punished are not as should jury. prohibition be. But the law is not the @=>l Electricity 9(6) 3. exces- law which violated these men. —Evidence current, person, injuring sive case to take against gambling, carrying con- jury, against in absence of evidence weapons, cealed more serious laws are presumption power company’s negligence. daily; shall, reason, violated vio- (electricity Evidence current high brought justice lators to the bar of voltage, unnecessary, unsafe, when and unsuit- able, passed power injury into store over defendant unpunished? left company’s wires, suffered The manufacture and intoxicating sale of therefrom, would be sufficient to take case to liquors has, long before the enactment of the jury, of facts absence or circumstances prohibition disprove laws, been presumption negligence. immoral, considered many societies, of the secret such as Ma- Electricity @=>I4(|) company 4. —Power sons, Eellows, Knights Odd using Pythias, safety rightfully insurer of of those current. organizations, similar have denied them ad- light company Power and is not insurer long mission before the adoption Eigh- safety rightfully of those who use teenth Amendment and the National Prohibi- current conducted over its wires. tion Act. Should members of the pro- Electricity @=>14(1) company must —Power adopt fession lower standard morality high degree conveyance use current. of care in organizations? than these My reasons for concurring in a reversal light required company Power and are that the evidence does not show an in- high degree maintenance, erection, care