*1 Aрr. 28, 17886. In Bank. F. No. 1950.] [S. THE BAR BEEKS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF LEWIS K. Respondent. CALIFORNIA, Adams, pro. per., Jr., K. in John and R. J. Beeks, Lewis Reynolds Petitioner. Respondent. Weil
Jerold E. THE COURT. as a mem- Petitioner seeks reinstatement application ber of The Bar California. His has been State recommendation the Board Governors refused favorable (Rules Appeal, 59(b).) Bar. on rule We have State appear for the rein- concluded that reasons which hereinafter statement should be denied. age dependent years and has wifе nowis daughter as an adult who self- daughters, well
and two Arts a Bachelor of Bachelor of and holds a He supporting. University Washington, in C.D. Howard degree from Laws in There- practice law California. admitted he was In 1923 Angeles continuously in until his dis- practiced after he following municipal in conviction July, 1934, in barment petty crime of theft of in Los Board of Governors from the of disbarment recommendation upon records conviction record upon the based fully discussed. For hereinafter more disciplinary petitioner received six sentence offense the misdemeanor provided granted upon probation which was jail, months jail He com- days make restitution. thirty he serve conditions. plied with both
The various transactions which were based dis- ciplinary proceedings leading petitioner, together concerning subsequent with the evidence efforts restitution, to make adduced at January
November and December of are *2 as follows: Spotts
1. misappropriated Matter. Petitioner the sum attorney $127.98 which he had received as Mr. Knox, for the executor of the estate of Ella B. Spotts, deceased, to be in paying charges against used certain falsely the estate. He money told the executor the had been used to redeem certain Spotts, stocks. Thereafter Sam executor, substituted as judgment against petitioner secured for the $127.98, was entitled to a credit of fees allowed estate, leaving services to the $77.98 owing from him to the estate at the time he was disbarred (1934).
Petitioner testified at the the summer of 1946 Spotts, securing he wrote Mr. after first supposed Knox, address the widow of Mr. but received reply. no Petitioner stated, however, that in- thereafter he spected judgment the court records of the and “found that judgment . . . the assigned had been Shepard, to some A.S. Shepard but who S. A. is or I is, where he don’t I know, have anything never heard any from him nor received information . . I . asked Mrs. get Knox and I never could touch with Spotts Mr. to find out from him what, whether knew, or Shepard who Mr. was ... I wanted to see ... I to whom pay to Spotts was it since Mr. my letter, didn’t answer Mrs. Knox said she didn’t lmow I what to do about it ... any never received Spotts information whatever from . Mr. . . I gone wouldn’t have to that if I trouble hadn’t intended to pay it.” Petitioner further testified that he from the learned Angeles records name of a rep- Los who Shepard, resented but communicating instead of with the attorney in pay an effort to judgment, petitioner referred the matter to another in an effort to work against Shepard. out a set-off The record indicates no attempts other by petitioner Spotts Shepard, to locate either or or to ready $77.98. He stated that he is nevertheless pay money to to whomever is due. it
2. The Brice Matter. Mr. Brice, petitioner’s client, deliv- ered purpose procuring appeal an plaintiff bond in an action wherein Brice and had failed judgment. to recover appeal Petitioner filed notice of after expired, time therefor had Brice but nevertheless told appeal had been taken and with- Thereafter, the bond filed. out knowledge petitioner Brice’s filed a new action Brice’s name, caused signed name to be such verification complaint, notary public and as purported'to authenticate pretended signature Brice’s Petitioner failed to oath. appear in trial, court when the action was called for second it was of prosecution. dismissed for lack Petitioner $30 secured from Brice to appeal two sureties on an bond. They qualify, failed to retain but them to allowed time Although petitioner for their and trouble. repay has not Brice, points offered to out that the record does not indicate him of that Brice ever accused misusing the money or ever its demanded return. testified that Brice stated hinder nothing he would do petitioner’s efforts practice. to be reinstated to Harper Matter. Petitioner certain sums received
3. money (the aggrеgate apparently uncertain amount is $200) applied between somewhere the total *3 client, Harper. of his Mrs. failed to He upon an indebtedness sums, municipal and the court conviction apply of such $25 so hereinabove, petitioner theft resulted. As stated petty of A probation. $25 of the as a condition restitution of made Harper’s Mrs. indebtedness was trust which secured deed of against brought foreclosed,* unlawful detainer suit was an possession delivered to a a of was secured and her, and writ made, peti service was for service. Before such constable wilfully to be the knowingly and caused served tioner and re purported to cause copy a of a order show constable although petitioner straining halting proceedings, the order sign original of such had refused to that the court the knew long judge, the name written copy The bore order. appear signature Petitioner failed at hand, on line. to the hearing purported оrder for on the time and set the place the to cause. show Friendship Foreclosure Matter. United Brothers 4. The Friendship, Petitioner, for United Brothers of as used to be as organization the sum paid $50 that hearings committee, whom the the *The administrative held, from disciplinary were was not certain on this matter any from failure of to that foreclosure resulted the record the apply properly him. the monies entrusted to expenses in the foreclosure of a deed of trust. Petitiоner falsely prosecute foreclosure, failed to but informed the organization been members that the trust deed had foreclosed, that he produce deed, would the trustee’s paid disbarment, into escrow Subsequent $50 therefor. to (in organization 1935) for sums sued the certain professional fees, against and credited the the settle- $50 ment. Friendship Interpleader 5. The United Brothers Matter. organization interpleader
Petitioner to advised the file against proceeds action two adverse claimants to the a life policy (or certificate). insurance benefit The committee before whom the held he was were found that so, to instructed file the suit but failed to do with the result negligence judg- claimant reason each recovered ment organization for the full amount of policy, appears to repre- $300. which have been organization sented the in each two actions services. Petitioner denies that he was interpleader instructеd file an has action and made no effort to reimburse the on payment. client account the double
6. The Lizzie Loan Jones Matter. Petitioner told Lizzie Jones needed borrow because of difficulties with The Bar. executed and delivered State She $700, note for deed home, peti- secured trust on her give tioner her promised to a deed to certain land Watts, California, payable to do failed so. note was hearings petitioner tioner’s wife. At testi- raising fied had succeeded in on note which Jones had executed, Mrs. that he considered this amount to be a repay, loan he should and that the difference between the face of the represented note compensation himto services he had rendered Mrs. Jones. further He stated that at one time Mrs. Jones had $1,000 him, demanded willing but that he was $352, plus interest the loan; although from date of and that *4 total, prefer paying could he would at the rate of placed $50 down a month. He also in evidеnce a present attorney stating letter Mrs. Jones’ that the lat- ter just had advised her that a $350 was settlement her claim, and a letter stating from Mrs. Jones “if that Mr. Beeks will us up agreement make his own terms and live I to his ’’ way being will not stand in reinstated.
7. Guardianship Jones, The Lizzie Matter. Mrs. Jones guardian minors, petitioner of two delivered to stock certifi- guardianship cates of the with them estate, instructions sell At support money to raise for the minors. the time of the petitioner had delivered no to Mrs. Jones stock, on account of the and the record is not clear as to whether he had then returned the certificates to her. How- ever, hearings evidence at the reinstatement indicates petitioner prior delivered Jones all the stock to Mrs. either shortly to or after disbarment. misappropri-
8. The Will J. Mallard Matter. Petitioner to him his ated the sum of which had been delivered client, Mallard, matter, be applied defendant in a divorce attorney’s plaintiff; awarded to thе wife. At fees costs petitioner Mallard, testified 1940, agreed might death in had set him ser- off owed Mallard for sums ; vices that had made a written record of the settle- ment not it. but could locate employed Bose Matter. Annie Rose
9. The Annie proceedings an action in new trial to handle tioner gone against her, services judgment had as her He was substituted therewith. connection trial were about her to believe new and led expired. although the therefor heard, time Following disbar- rehаbilitation. pertaining to Evidence of 1934 until from the fall employed ment, petitioner Officer of the Adult Probation November, 1935, as assistant to making periodic County. duties consisted His investigating those reports probationers, checks assigned. From officeduties as report, and other failed to who year em- petitioner was fall of that February, 1936, until the Depart- States of Census United the Bureau ployed From field, outdoor, worker. Janu- or as a Commerce ment of he worked as a with Novеmber, 1937, clerk ary to doing work, “research contact survey unit, governmental January to Novem- library From reading, work.” work, government on a clerk another ber, “checking . . . engaged houses survey project and was repairing mak- way what was needed to see 1942, he was June, December, From ing report.” relating survey of laws on a employed research Depart- by the U. S. sponsored barriers, which was to trade asso- period he was also During same Commerce. ment of *5 273 firm catering in Los Products, a Loggins with Food ciated occasion- (which and collections Angeles, was entrusted with banking, other and ally $1,000 per day), reached sum and to the sat- honestly, efficiently, duties, which he fulfilled were in the collections proprietors. isfaction of the Whether holi- During the Christmas appear. or in checks does not cash also acted day through petitioner 1939 periods August, Angeles post Since clerk in the Los office. substitute in the San shipyards employed he has in various beеn Francisco-Bay area. average income that from 1934 to his
Petitioner states averaged a month, $200 a and 1942 he has was since only fi- his petitioned for reinstatement month. At the time he in dis- involved obligation, nancial aside from the matters at the $2,300, payable proceedings, barment a balance price occupied a home monthly, purchase rate of on the Angeles. petitioner’s daughters in wife Los making purchased $7,000 had home and was payments regularly. an additiоnal He also contributed weekly daughters. his support wife and acquaintances Seven friends testified during preceding years several he had attended church regularly good had as man of moral conducted himself landlady Among petitioner’s character. these witnesses were Francisco, unspecified San whose in an rents amount satisfactorily during period had collected and accounted eight months, of six to the owner of a restaurant where he ate regularly, reрresentative and the business of the union belonged shipyard which he with connection his work. affirming Petitioner also introduced some letters reinstatement, good recommending moral character including from a Los judge superior letters Angeles, Angeles attorneys. judge and from five The “I petitioner, that, reinstated, wrote of if he would believe worthy make a member of Bar.” personally None the seven witnesses who testified as knowledge grounds petitioner’s present character hаd had upon which he was Prior to 1933 he handled disbarred. witnesses, a divorce matter for one of the but her association with had been of a social nature since 1942. representative steady, was a union testified that responsible worker, had had that he no transactions landlady for petitioner. whom with handled rents stated that he quiet, well-behaved, gentle- man, and attended church. The proprietor restaurant testi- fied thought petitioner that she was a gentleman, but that “I nothing know of Mr. Seeks.” The other three witnesses had had no business petitioner, transactions with but testified they that from social contacts felt he was rehabilitated and could be trusted.
In a letter Special addressed to the Administrative Commit- *6 tee before whom the held, were proprietors catering the Los firm with whom tioner was associated in 1938 to 1942 state that their business “grosses (4) now at (5) times four and five thousand dollars per irrespective week. And expansiveness of the of our busi- ness and of disbarment, his we offer him any at place time a in our establishment. firmly
“We honesty believe his and integrity and feel that his conduct since disbarment loyal has been that aof father, a constant, faithful and efficient worker and the con- any every duct of one who merits and consideration that can given person honestly be who has tried.
“If question reinstated he will be without our ad- visor and counsellor.” except
All one of the other letters introduced petitioner present good to establish his character were per- likewise from residing in Angeles, sons whereas has lived and worked the San Francisco area since August, 1942. Concerning petitioner’s present learning ability and in the law, year he testified that during the 1947 he visited the law library in San Francisco at least a week, once where he read advance sheets checked the law on various matters of cur- interest; December, 1938, rent that from June, 1942, as a survey sponsored by law abstractor for a Department the U. S. abstracted Commerce he laws and reviewed the codes states, including California, various on trade barrier matters. placed He also in evidence prepared two briefs he had in 1946 as an accommodation to appeal another in an Appellate Department Superior the San Francisco Court; that testified that pre- when the briefs were pared petitioner’s he was not aware of disbarment, but that “I think [petitioner] capable practicing law.”
The loсal “peti- administrative committee concluded that tioner himself present has rehabilitated . . . and that his qualifications moral are such as warrant his readmission practice upon of the law. Based its observation of evidence consideration hearing and its during the ability and present his issue of petitioner on the submitted seriously doubts whether learning law, the Committee practice for the learning qualifies petitioner ability such par- issue to be a this considers law. The Committee it is of the ease since ticularly important petitioner’s one in difficulties, led to original opinion petitioner’s inability and to his attributable disbarment, primarily were re- petitioner is that if learning lack ability and adequate proof of admitted without subjected to may again be risk that he learning in law the professional violations would lead to temptations which be sub- would require new ethics not be reinstated petitioner should stantial. It believes that examination successfully the written passes . . . unless he Bar.” for admission to general applicants required of “petitioner unanimously recommended that The committee required regular written examination permitted to take if he . . . and applicants admission general of all Thereafter, reinstated ...” successfully ... he be passes Bar Board of of The State with the Governors filed regular taking no aversion to “has a statement general applicants for required of all examination written supports . . practice law California . admission to [and] *7 Committee Special of the Administrative recommendation the the Board of Governors By one, of thirteen to a vote ...” “ (1) has not considering record found the after required the Bar qualifications of a member of high moral the rein- sufficiently warrant his not rehabilitated to . . . is [and] for to the statement; (2) petitioner is not fit readmission state,” and recommend law in this declined to practice of at all. subject taking the bar examination or to readmission 28 (1946), 779, In v. Bаr Cal.2d 788 McArthur State [172 “Upon appli- an principle reaffirmed the 55], P.2d we object reinstatement, the by cation a disbarred 52, Kepler Bar, 216 Cal. court, as observed in v. State of the whether not the character 509], ‘is to determine or P.2d [13 an office be admitted to applicant is such that he should trustworthy per- public trust, and recommended confidence. by in matters of son, consulted others fit to be proceeding proof burden of In such [Citations.] disbarment, accomplish a restora- sеeks, after to one who the court profession, and before ranks of the tion to the may reinstatement, it must be grant petition satisfied by effort he has fully positive convinced evidence that the character has been success- made toward rehabilitation of his person that the ful. It is reasonable seek- [Citations.] required to ing reinstatement, disbarment, should be after integrity honesty present stronger proof of his seeking for the time whose character than admission first one question must be proof presented . . . The has never been judgment former to overcome the court’s adverse sufficient ’ v. applicant’s (See, also, Wettlin character. [Citations.] ” 255].) Bar, P.2d State Cal.2d [151 showing made ease, in McArthur Here, as persuade not us that he is so rehabilitated that does again occupy position of trust and confidence that should hereinabove, appears is held at law. As in prior petitioner’s disbarment disciplinary proceedings misap including separate misconduct, items of volved nine (the propriation on at least four occasions of clients’ funds Spotts Harper case, the Brothers of Friend case, the United case). Spotts In ship case, and the Mallard foreclosure principal $77.98 sum of repaid matter has not Spotts when he was disbarred owed to the estate made a convincingly show that he has and he has failed to money should diligent to learn to whom the and sincere effort appar made effort as he has now be it. Such seeking arrange a settlement ently toward has been directed employed against method he of the claim the same testimony, in the and, according case the foreclosure Restitution case; e., by off other claims. Mallard i. set compulsion, a condition Harper made under case was offer petitioner has made no probation. In the Brice matter In from his client. the United repay received re Friendship interpleader petitionеr denies Brothers of case made no and has sponsibility for his client’s loss of In loan matter reimbursement. the Lizzie Jones effort at owing, but repay the full amount he claimed was was able to prefer payments. installment stated he would “We do occasions this has observed On several necessary for a disbarred mean to hold that it is not for him to show full order in all cases to make restoration *8 sufficiently himself to be entitled rehabilitated that he has case of the bar. As stated as a member be reinstated 456)] 736, (97 P.2d [(1939), 14 750 In re Andreani Cal.2d of and a conclusion making restitution importance ‘The of . . .
277 thereto, should weight be attached respecting the which should ability of the largely the financial or other determined be as well misappropriated, has that which he to restore ’ case regarding matter. In that the attitude of mind rein yet applicant was made, whatever was no restitution re has been only partial restitution stated. In other eases made, restoration quired, in all еven full cases when regarding mind of applicant proper must attitude show In other can for reinstatement. hope his offense before he satisfactory convincing proof that words, produce he must reasonably ways has success his efforts to reform his he been The not this test petitioner’s ful. evidence in behalf does meet (See . .” P.2d Bar, . Wettlin v. State Cal.2d [151 ; 789-790.) Bar, McArthur supra, v. State Cal.2d 255] record, including the Taking into consideration entire of Special recommendation Administrative Committee as well as we are Governors, the action the Board of view that convinc- produce has failed to such clear and ing proof acceptable possesses appreciation that responsibilities duties of an at law in relation courts, making to his clients and the of restitution to those whose trust violated, and confidence he heretofore justify ordering would our either immediate reinstatement or acceptance applicant аs an for examination qualifications. his technical application is denied. dissent.
CARTER, J.I agree with the conclusion reached disposed to I am committee heard petitioner’s special administrative petitioner had rehabilitated for reinstatement application qualifications moral are such as himself and practice of the law, readmission and that warrant his the written examination permitted take re- he should applicants and, general admission the bar if quired of examination, he should be reinstated as a mem- passes such bar. ber years elapsed between the
Approximately time hearing the special and the tioner’s disbarment ad- committee which recommended his reinstate- ministrative certainly period This is sufficient of time for dis- ment. by his accom- to show conduct he has barred special rehabilitation. administrative commit- plished testimony advantage hearing had the witnesses tee *9 produced petitioner, testimony of petitioner him- self, and members of that posi- committee were a better pass upon tion to the factual than issues either the members Board bar, of Governors or the members of this court, gained knowledge they who have whatever have case the written record.
It is well
settled
appli-
one and
issue on an
cation of
character
applicant
this
is whether the
has been
(In Andreani,
rehabilitated.
re
456].)
In recommendation of local adminstra- ample safeguard against affords an committee the rein- tive practice of the law of one who lacking statement learning would, moral character or I the law. there- either fore, follow the recommendation of the local administrative permit petitioner to take an examination re- committee quired general applicants bar, for admission to the and if passes examination, that such he be reinstated.