*1 Clark, Bar Committees G. General Chairman J. Informants, Re Rearden, v. M. Missouri spondent. (2d) 407. S. W. Appeals. April City 1937. Kansas Court *2 Assistant Beagan, General; E. Boy McKittrick, Franklin Attorney Gen- Attorney Jr., Assistant Howell, Attorney General; M. Charles informants. M. Peterson eral, Paul James B. Burlce and Committee, and Bar Kay, of Members Embry Harry L. P. H. Starling Boy W. of counsel. respondent.
Victor Packman Kaminsky
Harold of counsel. originated in this SPERRY, contempt proceeding, C. This of general chairman by the filing' an information of in- advisory committee. and his Committees Missouri Bar of St. of Reardon, a citizen alleges respondent, M. J. formation intruded attorney, unlawfully being licensed Missouri, Louis, en- unlawfully attorney court and of this of the office himself into Missouri, County, which Miller practice of law gaged in the him-- court; jurisdiction he held of this the territorial within performed law and did at an authorized self oue occasions, acts said designated two acts specified certain law law; constituted con- is a jurisdiction constitutes person unlicensed tempt of this court. cause court and show answer file cited to Respondent was contempt. punished guilty adjudged why he should not alleged.
Respondent answer, admitting doing filed acts doing constituted the practice He said denied that acts law; law; himself out as denied he ever held Appeals City Court of the Kansas denied that in- event; prayed dismissal formation. duly appointed informants,
Upon suggestion a commissioner was com report make thereon. The to hear evidence and this court County, parties by both missioner heard evidence Miller offered thereon, findings conclusions of law filed made fact and transcript court, together his rec complete in this of the whole discharged. ex Informants ommendation that filed findings ceptions report, commis and recommendations are judgment In sioner, and moved on the record. such case findings reported or conclusions of fact bound Trust ex inf. Miller St. Louis Union *3 the commissioner. 348; In 858, (2d) 74 W. Co., Corporation, 845, c. S. a Mo. l. 918, (2d) How Richards, 907, 333 Mo. l. 63 S. W. Matter of ever, very thorough report the of commissioner and conscien the tious, great has been assistance to this court. and it of was Respondent as by
The facts the record disclosed are follows: engaged years. collecting twenty in the and been so business had any other attorney law in He is not licensed as an at this State or in jurisdiction. a upon evidence base There is not sufficient which to law, although his as finding he himself held out permit people was such with whom he conduct as to the dealt this, licensed, nothing and he did to correct assume that he was so by Groc- impression employed false obtained. He was Goddard ery Company given to collect sum three checks which the of had been Exchange, corporation, a Brumley Farmers the and December, In paid not been bank. called checks he Exchange manager The payment. on of the and demanded respondent de- paid, whereupon wrote amount was out and claimed executing assignment claim, one of the of the directors livered Grocery Company respondent same in the name Goddard of assignee of legal effect He also of advised fact. rights assignment On of and of his instrument thereunder. .the thereafter, again Exchange called on col- February he against Company, Wulfing Grocery it in lect an account favor Exchange represented. which he The in financial was difficulties manager pay, invited him later but the to come back and could days returned, A account. few later he an effort to settle called, met respondent meeting was and a board of directors payment, suit He demanded informed them that with them. brought paid. corporation was not if the account would assignment advised the board make an pay, he could all the assets corporation of the for the He benefit of its creditors. advised the board legal of the effect of assignment snch an the benefits that would accrue- to the corporation. brought He him a form of assignment, quitclaim a deed, and forms for minutes corporation authorizing directing this action. The board of directors took his advice, used forms of he minutes which prepared, and president secretary signed and executed assignment for the benefit of prepared creditors as by re- for them spondent, conveying personal all property corporation to re- spondent trust the benefit of all creditors providing therein respondent paid “a reasonable fee” his services in executing the trust. He then prepared quitclaim deed, which the president corporation signed executed, conveying all of the real corporation estate absolutely simple, fee not as trustee grantee but -unconditional con- sideration. It was then every- discovered that he had not obtained thing corporation, charter, owned exclusive its but that actually legal corporation, truck owned title to which individual, ad- in an had been overlooked. He then was vested and board of directors as to the effect vised officers involving rights employment the truck and of the contract of regard thereto. corporation property owned having assigned all of the After deeded and creditor, stranger solely representing corporation to a corporation directors of the advice, the his officers board give sought to have attorneys and consulted licensed charge. do This he refused to unless their back into property what' are not informed $200 services. ¥e paid for his *4 herein. we have consisted other than what mentioned his services charge stipulated any separate show that evidence does not The legal drawn. given instruments advise or for the for the was made paid expected to be show, however, that does The record Farm it, by the G-roceiy Company for services to and by 'Wulfing it trustee; think Brumley acting Exchange for ers charge prep separate was made for advice that no immaterial charge down unnecessary a legal is to It break papers. aration charge made ascertain was sections in order that a to itemized into instru by in transaction; bound recital the nor are we a for each to “fee” was respondent, that his assignment, prepared ment v. St. Louis Union ex rel. Miller as trustee. services be for con 348, There was a valuable (2d) Co., 74 S. W. 356.] Trust essential, in con It is not rendered. the service sideration law, respon to show that illegally practicing proceeding tempt any particular named in cash. paid amount o-r promised was dent may consideration, nature, and its lack consideration, the or .of The com- determining in the acts important whether in some cases in law, is practice of but not essential constituted the plained of all cases. assignment benefit creditors When drew its of directors of and advised the board corporation, 3; v. Am. Meunier Jur. Section practicing law. it, '. [5 571; 567, l. ex inf. McKittrick C. S. ernich, So. B d 895; banc, (2d) Co., Supreme Court 102 W. en S. & Mo. u Court, Coon, Supreme G. Clark al. v. P. H. Mo. rel. State ex nothing lawyer, (2d) say to It avails some 01 S. W. undisclosed, prepared and advised the -v . ne use is hose „orm form, place. some or the identical other time and a similax grows changes day, day >. static. It from is Tl law not judicial interpretation. leg What enactment dative today may Any the law tomorrow. wants not be who be w may purchase of form books and \y price a set read j. in own if copy use his business he so desires. them. He them consideration, this he advises others for a when But is law, proper is that this form or form be used transaction, doing when a lawyer then he is all that a does a certain usually copying mere form is The of the seeks his advice. client stenographer stenographer; office lawyer’s in a done but lawyer copy, what to client be told relies must accomplish whether form will of the as to advice particular in his Nor will it say the desired result case. do to^ prop- proper forms were the that the used forms were this case begging ques- erly out; filled for that is not test and but Indeed, quitclaim case convey deed did not tion. benefit of conveyed trust creditors but property title, probably which even would unrestricted board of directors intentionally, right do. done had no not have regulations body intricate of the law an set of rules de- regulation signed by society for the corporations of individuals and society each knowledge and with A in their relation other. study gained from a the common Con- it can statutes, courts, stitution, and of decisions construed particular facts and light of the circumstances then before objective sought thereby. real to be and the attained importance left subject vital to be of tbo but who those special study prepared themselves have some have attained therein, knowledge well as ethical standard consciousness *5 public and to the client. obligation to This must their standard public prescribed by authority; rules only after under be met legally granted engage can one has practice been a license primarily not are restrictions Such benefit of law- of law. society. [People the benefit rather, for of the but, State of yers,
671 New York Alfani, v. 227 334, N. Y. l. 339; c. Opinion In re Jus (Mass.), tices 194 N. E. One not engages licensed and 313.] wbo may punished under 11692 11693, Sections 1929, Revised Statutes crime. But respondent prosecuted being not under the statute and we are therefore not concerned with the effect statute, of the difference, with the any if be, there between practicing law and conducting a law business as therein. mentioned We are con- cerned with the statute in far so as it restrict particular Legislature action. The right to declare statute should what prescribe constitute a penalty therefor, crime which is what Legislature the mentioned does. statute But the cannot restrict right ancient of this court to declare what shall constitute a con- tempt Legislature of it. Both the and this court were established infringe Constitution and the powers one any Legislature, laying Nor the other. act down can of what shall constitute a definition render punish contempt impotent guilty who is in fact contempt. indirectly cannot di It do what it do has.no 567, 575, 576; rectly. Bernich, 170 So. l. Is c. Rhode [Muenier Ass’n, c. 139, Bar Ass’n v. 179 Atl. land Automobile Service l. 142.] right contempt constitutes a to determine what and to court, “has, express any in the since it is inherent without therefor right objects accomplish naturally all grant, inherent expressly 'fact department, not limited orbit of that express similar elsewhere or the limitations of a existence 914; Richards, 907, 333 Matter of Mo. l. c. Constitution.” [In (2 Ed.), 182, page Law Sections American Sec. 1 Andrew’s 221.] 11693, 1929, Statutes Missouri Bevised aid of are limi authority regulate not a State to the law abridgement remedy additional is an tation thereon. It Richards, supra; Matter of 5 Am. Jur. remedies. preexiting [In 2; 567, 574; v. Bernich l. c. (La.), Meunier So. 262, Sec. Assn., supra; Island Bar Assn. v. Automobile Service Rhode l. Nor is Walker v. Harber Mo. ex rel. there right necessary in the Constitution. The limitation purpose court, always accomplishment has been practiced. This is not recognized an action between individiuals parties determined; of individual are to be rights it is an wherein involving interest, public literally informants are in action ordinary in the sense. parties dissenting opin and not formers [See v. The Wichita Betail Credit et al. Depew Association, 141 ion in 488; Bichards, In Matter of supra.'] 481, Kan. does not have injunction objective issuance of but is pro a contempt as its justifies information furnished to the if ceeding, contempt, guilty cannot, informants finding *6 by any nature of pleadings, sought do, limit they even if so to punishment this taken or of action to direct the course be -us; will merely we court. Informants have facts before laid the contempt, and, if such the event determine facts in constitute punish do, future, in and to protect what order to make to the court the offender.
Respondent, law within the ter- practiced an person, unlicensed question here jurisdiction. The sole ritorial limits of this court’s practice presence of this is: of law outside the immediate Does the does, it contempt this If constitute a constructive court? punish power therefor. to have law, he respondent practiced If in court and appeared our having undoubtedly contempt practiced a fraud in would be having this court court, performed and for a function of on the performed only which can be an court. To hold officer this might impunity lead with would the conclusion he otherwise to that presume courtroom, per in to be preserve to order a function Respond our marshal, usurp formed a function of clerk. agrees person in ent that an to law our court unlicensed contempt punish. would commit for which be to we could virtually argument Supreme conceded in oral that the Court unlicensed punish, contempt proceedings, any to has may person presume State, whether to law in this who elsewhere, theory act in its own on occurs forum or Supreme authority licenses law. Court has to to issue sole right solely It has usurpation been held the unlawful of a province contempt grant, constitutes of court. court to Assn., Bar 179 Atl. Island Assn. v. Automobile Service [Rhode Supreme Our Court has held that has 141.] Boyle rel., contempt proceedings in eases. ex G. Clark such [State (Mo. Ct.), et al. P. H. Sup. (2d) v. Coon 101 S. W. that, actually court, But it said offense occurs in unless proceedings pending court, in connection in inferior court no cognizance respond of it for the that it make take reason would contempt proceedings only in Supreme ent liable to the Court Appeals Court but also to the Court of that Circuit logic jurisdiction. There is no this contention for the reason practices court, without that one who a license or out Gr. contempt Supreme rel., Court. ex Clark Coon, person P. H. If such a supra.] perfect should an court, surely he appeal a Circuit Court to this would from be in Court, Supreme well contempt Court; of the Circuit as of the pleadings having court, be prepared papers filed this prepared by authorized can he right contempt of this court. this pro would court to depend upon contingency dignity cannot tect its own court, fact liability some nor other criminal statute. prosecution also be under a liable urged over even Next, can exercise no control it is court, that not, strictly speaking, an officer of who is *7 court. signed of this actually the rolls not say, is one who has to recognized of disbarment in eases been has never Such defense of Appeals. Courts And .any Court this or other proceedings in adjudicate proceedings. disbarment entertain and Appeal 369; Sparrow, In re 252 Mo. Ellroy ex rel. v. Selleck et en court to right of this inherent (2d) 401, The W. l. S. upon the fact not based charges against an is tertain It herein. court, is, enrolled particular he is officer court, the the protection of necessity “for the based the is pro dignity purity justice, and the proper administration of clients.” good protection public the fession, the 154, 155; In Ed.), 80, pp. (2 Attorneys Law sec. on [Weeks Sparrow was one where the The case Sparrow, supra.'] re the Appeals, where Springfield Court of in the not enrolled jurisdiction. originated, citizen of that nor a cause Supreme Court, the Subject superintending control of to the practice regulate control the power to vested with is disbar, punish or jurisdiction, suspend, law within this to otherwise terri- profession within the attorneys practice their licensed who or presence in our immediate court, of this whether torial limits superintend- presence court. We have whether which jurisdiction, ing within this control over all inferior courts these superintendence of the bar of necessarily carries with it can courts, part of The of law for the bar court. only If legally duly such engaged by licensed therefor. those though practice by any attorney no crime is com- unethical, even may be mitted, steps take cite him before us and such as authority necessary prevent This deemed order to its recurrence. protect primarily wrong, we exercise not. to for a but to imposition, public from from of unethical and the the evils longer practices by permitted those to unfit to advise clients be. guard regard powers to matters. This court has inherent to jurisdiction. primary in its That the administration of the law is the regulation attorneys secondary supple- power. The is but duty law is none mental. It is to see that the administered license; except qualified, evidenced those deemed as them ethically long qualified. illogical remain would be power say of, inherent to we have the to the license revoke deemed, competent authority, was once punish, one who to be to legal matters, public and also to hold that to advise the fitted authority enough protect far extend to inherent does not such courts, reputation of the public and the ministers qualified to against never considered courts, Court deny power in and advise the law. “To a destruction tantamount deal with would be such offenders Bar Illinois State People rel. power ex The itself.” [The Ill. Bank, Peoples Yards State al. v. Stock Association et Coon, v. P. H. al. 473; ex G. Clark et rel. supra.] urged limits within the narrow power Our not circumscribed attorneys. If suspend disbar is,
respondent, that regulate field were, supervise and whole then we could not accomplish law, and could administration rul- purpose for courts were established. Such primary contrary power of courts ing place upon the would a limitation rests, theory upon inherent as declared very which our beginning jurisprudence. We have of our all the courts since the Supreme Court, subject supervision of without power, to the the statutory regulate practice and aid, control the administra- *8 jurisdiction. includes This tion of the law this by any prevent administration unlawful its layman. necessarily have lawyer We qualified, whether he if proceedings, authority, contempt to enforce necessary. engaged was the unauthorized find that We adjudge jurisdiction, contempt him in
of law within this doing. appear It is further ordered he before this so day M., May, 1937, nine-thirty at A. court on 3rd o’clock judgments obey such further orders and the court to hear Campbell, C., time. concurs. may render at that C., foregoing adopted PER CURIAM: The opinion Sperry, opinion engaged find of the court. We jurisdiction, of law within this the unauthorized adjudge contempt doing. him in this court for so further appear day May, 1937, on the ordered before 3rd M., obey A. nine-thirty o’clock to hear and such further orders judgments All as the court render at time. concur. H. Exchange O. Bank Moberly, Commissioner, Merchants Ap Company Life of Des Respondent, Moines, v. Bankers pellant. 744. (2d) W. 104 S. April 5, City Appeals. Court of 1937. Kansas