*1 200 superior

Judgment with direction reversed, action. court dismiss J., Tolman, O. G-ebaghtt, Millabd, Steinebt, JJ., concur. August 10, D. 2082. En Banc. C. 1936.]

[No. In Fred M. Bond.1 the Matter the Disbarment governors.

Matthew Hill,W. for board of Guy Kelly Meagher, E. Meier for accused. & proceeding upon a disbarment J. This Mitchell, against M. Fred complaint M. Sorenson Fred Washing-ton, the board before Bend, of South Bond, Washington governors Bar Associa- State may spoken be at times Fred M. Sorenson tion. may spoken complainant, M. Bond at times Fred respondent. of as appears Fred M. Sorenson insti-

It against Demir in unlawful detainer one tuted an action February, pre- judgment A 1931. and recovered’ case consti- of execution mature enforcement against M. basis a suit tuted the conversion, which, sheriff in and the 1Reported (2d) P. 54. jury, judgment

trial to a resulted in favor of including Demir in the sum of $1,745, costs. negotiations

After entered, *2 Friendly had between Fred M. and the (hereinafter Company spoken of Finance the as company), Washington, finance Bend, South which the finance to, and assume did, providing super- the burden of for Fred M. Sorenson a stay appeal, pro- or and cost bond on sedeas also viding payment expenses for the costs and of such appeal, they arrangement occurred. The between parties provided for several written instruments that were executed and delivered. One of the instru- quitclaim ments mortgage, was a intended deed, as a April whereby, expressed dated 11, 1931, for an con- conveyed sideration of $1,800, Sorenson certain real property county in. company. Pacific to the finance in that case was affirmed. Demir v. (2d) Sorenson, 167 judg- Wash. 9 363, P. 383. The surety ment gave was thereafter satisfied who supersedeas bond. judgment, After the affirmance M. Fred began superior against an action court company, Frank finance Fred Nixon, Eichner, (the persons being C. L. Switzer named three last company), officers of John I. O’Phelan, quitclaim to have deed set aside and declared to n be null and void. That action will be hereinafter re- company ap- ferred to No. as cause 7892. The finance peared by cross-complaint, sought judgment and, mortgage, adjudication the deed a an amount due it account of its disbursements in con- appeal nection with the in Demir v. Sorenson, all other arrangements amounts it under due between the parties, deficiency judgment. Upon the trial appeared original of that case, instruments quitclaim parties, deed or between whether the tbe original copies, writings had all other and whether or accidentally destroyed by respective been lost parties supposed possession Even a of them. to have copy been recorded certified of the deed which had procured had to be for the trial. No. in cause testified

Several witnesses had been respect instruments several fact parties, also between the and delivered executed instru- with reference contents testified according M. Bond recollections. to their ments saying, subject, in a effect, that, Abel at Montesano H. at the office W. conference attorneys, their defendants and between some place commenced, No. 7892 was cause after took promise a written of and saw he first learned *3 company, reimburse the Fred M. Sorenson to signatures in- and testified with reference to struments. theory upon contrary

In case, the trial of that complaint filed, which Fred M. Sorenson’s quit- any held was denied relief and it was in be, was, claim deed was intended to aiid fact a mortgage. owing by The Fred M. amount Sorenson judgment and and for foreclosure determined, deficiency judgment company a favor of the finance by Kirby Judge was entered on 15, Homer October testimony given by respondent It 1932. was the September 30, that trial on 1932, that constitutes the present complaint against for the him basis before the governors board of of the State Bar Association. and a new trial ordered aside was set May upon Kirby by Judge Fred M. 6, 1933, Homer among things, up, set other which motion, Sorenson’s he had found written trial, the fact since as controversy, instrument involved in the follows: At.t, we That Presents: These “Know Men the state Company, corporation

Friendly Finance and I. O’Phelan John Eichner, Fred Washington, Fred guarantee warrant and hereby Frank Nixon said Fred keep and we shall save for any loss and and without harmless by George secured the judgment reason of court for Superior said Fred Sorenson against all attorney’s also Washington county, Pacific if said expenses; court and costs fees, we loss reason thereof Sorenson suffers good shall make such loss to him. day

“Dated this 23rd 1931. April, “Friendly Finance Company “By Nixon, Frank President (Corporate Seal) “C. L. Switzer, Secretary

“Fred Eichner “John I. O’Phelan “Frank Nixon” of as a spoken instrument guaranty, “D.” Exhibit complainant’s also then cause 7892, amended No. The pleadings Judge Batchelor, Chester A. trial before April 10, foreclosing entered judgment was with- $2,059.35, interest, sum mortgage The real any deficiency judgment. providing out on July 7, 1934, at sheriff’s sold sale property for the the judgment the finance amount of and costs. *4 complaint

Formal in the present proceed- written 16, on by complainant May was after ings 1934, made No. in cause judgment the date of the final 7892. in the trial before complaint

substance of he Kirby, Homer Judge respondent complainant had an between and thé seen agreement on the containing finance company obligations part each 'other; to the was a ma- terial matter and was in memorandum untrue, signed by complainant; was not no that it contained obligation any- complainant’s part or statement of thing agreement he was, and that do, guaranty company, in a effect, the finance complainant saving Eichner and John O’Phelan, I. against harmless reason of the secured complainant him in the Demir in had action appeal supreme taken an court. present pro- respondent

The answer of ceedings appropriate general sets contains denials and testimony, complaint, out his as referred to follows: agreement office copy Mr. at Abel’s “I of this saw It conference. had our first we one when forenoon prepared answers

was before the a short pleadings, closed conference and when the go Aber- Abel was anxious noon, Mr. before time deen and pro con items and several we went over the agreement got I noticed to this when down we parties. signed agreement there and the I know Mr. Eichner’s signature Mr. Switzer’s signed. agreement I know of fact. The matter signature; I did not there. it was Mr. Sorenson’s hurry. agreement stop because we were in a read the copy prepare for- I Eichner to me Mr. .asked in and said he he came me. Afterwards ward it to sorry, know what looked for but he did not it, copy. him I asked had done with his in the world he duplicate; I him not to was, he said told it it was worry pro- it Sorenson would have to about because way I did read all the duce his. not Abel mentioned; reason I was anxious thru away; get DidQ. I read contents. did not anywise cognizant contents? A. become April, dated in and I know I knew the contract was propositions guaranty, I had certain it but as a carefully; through glanced read it but it, did obligations I know it had on both what sides, *5 DidQ. was to do. to do and what the you say signed A. saw? the instrument signed parties, of It all the it had the seal the n By corporation on it. : Do know Q. Mr. Atwell whether it had reference to this deal or deal? other some A. I know Q. it had reference deal. to this you know? How do A. I examined document the enough know that.” of present the board referred The cause was consisting one mem- governors of committee to trial persons governors and two other of of board ber the committee of board. members the who were not testimony in the case and heard all of' the received except a witness Nixon, Frank here, we have it that of respondent, other before the who later testified the findings of the trial six board. The members of the against respondent. The conclu- the committee were than committee, of of that other sion two members governors, of member of board the one who was a the suspended respondent for two was that the should years. of acted on the The member the board who suspension agree and recom- committee refused governors mended of have re- board should reprimanded. spondent appear before them and'be The matter was then heard before the other six report members of the board of the trial com- together it, mittee and the taken before with evidence the additional Frank Nixon. find- of The ings against respondent together and, constitute one instrument recommendation, board’s report only by signature authenticated of the president attesting signature of the of board and the secretary diversity opinion board. A expressed stating without member views The board. recommendation was as follows: gov- “Three of the four members the board of making foregoing findings, ernors recommend to Washington supreme court state suspended practice M. from said Fred Bond be year. period law for the of one fourth member (cid:127)joining findings, said recommends that said disbarred. Two members of M. permanently Bond be the board *6 participating herein dissent from the fore- going findings, charges and recommend the be ’’

dismissed. by objections exceptions filed the Proper respondent. evi- voluminous the in the is record case upon conflicting. differ- arises the The conflict

dence complainant between the ence in the case. witnesses of all other upon necessary whole not—since the Whether appears drawn the conclusions record it may complainant before well, are unwarranted —it discussing refer to some facts and evidence, to including prior case, in the relations circumstances help deciding parties, principal that will case. com-

(1) before trial In of the trial the course already appearing complainant mittee, No. and cause been involved suit had “never had a lawsuit and he he testified that 7892, “I never was a lawsuit and further, out;” lost any in cross-examina- But, court.” never was before paid had for the con- he admitted he tion, property, in which suit he version of a woman’s by respondent. represented there testi- Further, mony, contradiction the com- which there nowas plainant, in a action between com- divorce represented by being plainant re- and his she wife, spondent, obtained a final decree of divorce his wife just before a few months suit No. Sorenson’s commenced.

(2) complainant’s testimony, From the he had twenty-eight twenty-seven or Nixon known Frank years Frank time years, during last few Bank of president of First National Nixon was Raymond; matters to business he trusted all my practically at all advisor “he Frank Nixon, times.” Bend. live at South

(3) wife Respondent and his married; They of whom are children, three have six Michigan, in 1901, graduated Arbor, Ann at in law Bend practiced South Pontiac, settled law practicing actively engaged in law at 1911, and has charge kind first since. all times one of his against is not The finance him. being regular case first suit the Sorenson clients, represented learned of He it. first in which he controversy complainant company’s in June, upon being Fred Eichner retained company. *7 testimony large (4) According number of a to the respondent the as who have known a of witnesses acquainted Bend who are resident and South professional religious, and the social, life, business reputation respondent all for truth and times honesty good. and been, has is, may

Preliminarily, further stated testi- mony generally, dispute there is no that the first time respondent any instrument between saw written Soren- company son and the finance a conference in was at having H. office, W. Abel’s the latter been retained attorney for John I. O’Phelan, of the defend- one brought present ants the suit Sorenson. Those at that conference were H. Abel, W. John I. O’Phelan, respondent. Frank and Eichner, Nixon, the The respondent any possession never at had time in his complainant one of the between instruments company. quitclaim being the finance The after deed, papers, orig- whether The other lost. recorded, was copies, There was lost. some difference were inals obliga- opinion as to whether the recollection complainant part to reimburse the on the tion separate company instru- was contained finance obligations containing finance or in ment one complainant, company whether there is, that were written addition or two one instruments quitclaim deed. complainant, who had business man accumu-

The quantity prop- real of bonds and lated a considerable only erty, instruments, two there agreement. guaranty quitclaim A care- deed reading rather of his makes the situation ful appeal in learned an that he clear to the effect dollars; five hundred would cost about Demir case ready money nor meet it he did not have and that including judgment al- pay $1,745, costs, for negotiations ready against with the him, hence his protection against company execution on expense financing Demir understanding being supreme appeal court, to the company would be reimbursed for its the finance expenses. advances and given. purpose, mortgage The

For nothing contrary. agreement says guaranty Its purpose keep complainant expressed harmless judgment, and without loss reason between him the finance was to is, stand judgment. guaranty and the enforcement of *8 says nothing appeal, yet, of about the costs an agreement, company real the finance was to judgment, pay if and the costs of the affirmed, Complain- appeal, it be reimbursed. for which should they negotiations, their discussed in ant testified mortgage giving cover the amount of the to Ms obliga- judgment, other and some certain taxes appeal, together of with the costs his, tions quitclaim spoken giving deed the final result of mortgage. referring of as a After to and intended including of $1,745, costs, the sum complainant, questions by a member answer of the trial committee, testified: your you might “Q. It did enter into mind have that pay money up mortgage some after in case that you lost out? A. I understood it would me cost gave mortgage they when and that would take paid care of Q. the whole it. And that it would be your property, you out of did .case win? A. paid your property Yes, because Q. sir. It would be out of you gave mortgage? A. sir.” Yes, appeal in case, As to the costs of the cross- respondent, examination counsel he testified: money you getting “Q. Sorenson, Mr. were gentlemen, money they from these and that is the were pay appeal supreme on this court con- you? sidered in the nature of a loan to Do now? mortgage supposed A. to take care that. money Q. Well, but it was of a loan nature you, was it not? Well, A. but I never received They advancing money, Q. it. because you did not have the Yes, cash? A. sir.” complainant’s testimony upon own as to the Now, just parties, between rea- real is according (and it sonable all of witnesses) the finance should the other complainant’s promise written reimbursement take guaranty, its written whether as that he should take separate joint in addition to the instruments, in a mortgage, says nothing given which latter deed as a subjects. of those either *9 testimony obligated Upon own to reim- his he was company quite important burse view- the finance an — point weighing testimony considering in in his good bringing matter of faith this unfortunate proceeding. testimony looking from technical at the

However, standpoint, complainant in his ver- alone stands important supposed facts to be most sion of what are upon Respondent’s in court, case. upon charge its face his based, shows opportunity explain prudence limited care upon facts, he had to learn which he testified nearly language indicate lack of would more good explained faith had he not the situation. This justified if it be assumed for the moment conclusion is signed by complainant no instrument that there was agreeing to reimburse the finance un-—an assumption upon a consideration of all of warranted the record the case. same conclusion must be fairly indulged in inif, we consider all of addition, respondent letters, contents two written shortly charges about the time or after these were filed, that were introduced and relied on the com- plainant, lengthy and which are too in full be set out herein.

Respondent good still insists truth testimony complained faith of his of. In direct exami- nation, he testified:

“Q. Did believe the statements made true? A. did, and still believe them to be true. You will never convince me otherwise, that there such a document.” repeated times statement, effect,

He several under cross-examination. complainant’s attorney in the O’Phelan,

John I. papers litigation, prepared all of the between company. He testified finance client and the Ms complainant ont they prepared, took them were after and the deed a friend and them to show day, signed agreement as he guaranty the next signing of com- and that he never saw remembered, company; plainant’s *10 company, not the business the the finance business agree- the execution of to see after witness, the the company. Time and the finance ment to reimburse again, agreement in substance, he testified to an such questions by a member about as follows answer to of the trial committee: yester- you today, I either

“Q. believe testified day you agree- morning a reimbursement drew you prepared ment and had it time that drew at the Friendly Maybe Company? a deed for A. Finance I used reimbursement, the word I did but not intend testify agreement. I to. to intended I drew an agreement? Friendly Q. Mnd of What an A. That the Company provide super- Finance secure carrying appeal sedeas bond on. Mr. Sorenson protect people Friendly would those and reimburse the Company expense.” for Finance its company finance an officer at Eichner, question, was with com- date of the instruments plainant I. officewhen instru- in John 0’Phelan’s prepared. were He testified: ments many prepared at that “Q. How instruments my judgment To three instru- time? A. the best of indemnity agreement ments; deed and this you contract or whatever call it.” this other respect loss with testified, He further instrument: third later on whether you Eichner, Mr. recall, “Q. Do [respondent] do him

you conversation had a —I telephone, inor over it was know whether not A. document? find the were unable office,but Yes, I remember we were unable locate the other ’’ later. Raymond secretary-

C. L. a banker in Switzer, company, treasurer of the finance left that he the matter to Fred Eichner and Frank Nixon, that given by complainant security deed was all complainant. Being advances for questioned by a member of trial committee, speaking being of there three instruments, the witness testified: you get [three did idea? instru- “Q. Just where agree- Really, guess ments] was an A. because there Friendly Fi- ment Sorenson and The made between Company repay, agree-

nance and when this other point up, impression I had trial ment these two came the one. together Q. were all instruments explain, though, happened Well, how does to think himself was an instrument Sorenson was think instrument, there a third n pay? signed promise awith A. there Well, signed besides a deed, *11 night.

in Mr. I 0’Phelan’s office that That is as I Q. there recollect it. Was on one was that paper, paper? sheet of or two 'A. sheets of Well, only I Q. cannot recall. And did on half on, he write —and only writing just was the sheet, what shape see it you. it? A. I Well, Q. cannot tell you you Did all? A. I Q. did. How do know you saw it? A. Because I know that Sorenson signed paper very another deed on besides night. my testimony.” That is in attorney I. for John O’Phelan in cause

W. H. Abel, only before trial No. testified committee concerning proceeding the written instruments in question, speaking in his and after the conference enumerating from in- recollection the written officeand parties them, had with said: struments the is that there was a reimburse- “Q. Your recollection signed by Mr. for ad- ment these and so, I think A. for him? made vanees my present recollection.” that is follows: as cross-examination and on signature on it? of Fred Sorenson there “Q. Was IA- than Sorenson’s? other Q. A. I What think so. any say were there I do not think . . . cannot others. remarking re- he would the words Just Company Friendly ad- Finance imburse the vances appeal.” for and on account made hurriedly on a tele- conference H. Abel left the W. in- of the phone became know what and did not call belong client. did not to his It strument. only be- time first and for the

Frank Nixon testified governors con- of the board members fore the six saying cerning executed, of instruments the number president he instruments, at the date that, Raymond had been and First National Bank of years, president finance for a number of judgment, company, com- after the thought saying plainant he see him in bank came to appeal but wanted was excessive talking money “after so, did to do not have agreed company] [the him I several times ’’ money. repeatedly three him let have the He follows: executed, instruments say many papers were in there did “Q. How Q. A. Three. What connection with this transaction? my lay I a deed A. recall it were the three? As and these to Eichner to file which I turned over desk agreements. a memo- Q. two memorandum prop- agreement alleging redeem his he could randum Only sign? many A. erty? did Q. A. How Yes. many had possibly Q. How two. One as recall. one, signed signed? signed deed and A. He *12 give agreement. to Q. It other memorandum this right Q. . . What redeem? A. Yes. . him the were the gave terms property? right memoran- A. The to redeem the diim the amount of stated what the costs and repay be and he would us that amount and we give property. him would . a deed and deed back the agreed Friendly repay . Q. . Fi- A. And nance? we also had that to memo- reduced Q. randum. Is that the memorandum talked about signed? saw A. Yes.” practicable out herein all or to set It is not given Enough testimony. de been more of has ap proper controversy, rule is when the termine the testimony challenged Respondent’s re plied. that is that time all of which at instruments ferred to written testimony destroyed. of his The or were mislaid lost, except given of the or all all, one, when witnesses was testimony or The lost mislaid. instruments given the execution loss time considerable after nearly respondent and all of the instruments. opportunity ob him had scant witnesses relied on signatures contents of the sev learn serve the testi made clear eral instruments. memory. They, necessarily, mony. from testimony to be is not circumstances, Under such certainty- good faith on the rule measured — part test. of the witness is the

Again, are the fact that there here, the case unimportant of re- differences some compared spondent the one witnesses, and his several of in- number another, dates, conferences, as to precise or the ex- each, contents of struments, and the memory concerning pressed lack of it clearness light things, considered or all such any purpose or inten- variance with record, whole is at respondent part re- to distort or on the tion strain the truth. testimony, carefully weighing

Upon we all of the charges been have not sus- are convinced that *13 complaint that be dismissed. It tained, and should is so ordered. C. J., Steinert, Holcomb,

Millard, Tolman, JJ., concur. he (dissenting) me to seem J. Blake, —What dispute. in

controlling matter are in this facts they Chronologically are: stated, April and de- (1) executed one Sorenson 23, 1931, quitclaim Company Friendly Finance livered to county. property in Pacific deed to certain an action (2) commenced 1932, 3, June county superior cancel the deed. of Pacific court ap- (Fred Friendly Company M. (3) Bond Finance by way attorney) pearing and, its answered as cross-complaint, alleged deed was executed that monies to be advanced secure certain delivered to advance $2,350.28 did in fact Sorenson; that it it prayed a mort- deed declared to him. he It property gage he decreed a lien on the it that amount.

(4) Upon trial arose cause, issue deficiency judg- to whether was liable for a obligation. Bond ment. The deed contained no such under oath on and testified issue, became witness instrument, Sorenson had another executed whereby obligated connection with he transaction, pay any deficiency property himself to case Friendly bring the amount failed advanced Company. Finance

(5) On entered a decree 1932, October the court declaring adjudging mortgage, the deed to he a property, awarding lien foreclosure. The a. provided: decree also and decreed that ordered considered, “It is further paid deficiency, the same he

if there be plaintiff, said Sorenson, Fred M. to the defendant, Friendly Company.” Finance (6) petition November 21, 1932, Sorenson filed petition, for modification In of the decree. he set up April an instrument executed 23, 1931, connection with the in which had transaction exe- cuted the deed. This instrument, however, exe- *14 by Friendly Company cuted Finance others, and by not Its Sorenson. contents are not material here. say obligations It will sufficeto under the in- aspect carry strument ran to no Sorenson. In did it any obligation performed kept by or condition to be or petition hearing him. The on for came before the trial judge, Kirby, the late Honorable Homer who filed a opinion, following quo- memorandum from which the tation is taken: “During of admitted that the course the trial it was Company from deed to the Finance this Sorenson given mortgage After . . . concession a only by ques- remained the was made there present not tion of whether or the court the It was case deficiency judgment. could allow a conceded by parties for that there counsel both unless awas promise pay part fi-

written nance on the of deficiency company judgment that no could foreclosure, entered and that finance com- pany would be confined to whatever it derived funds property by from the sale of covered deed from Sorenson. Some latitude in matter was allowed proof upon question the introduction of of whether promise part or not there a was such written company finance Sorenson. The contended there was promise lost, such a written but it had been de- that stroyed misplaced, consequently proof promise entirely by parol. the execution of such by is for “It contended counsel defendant finance company authority grant court has no judgment modification or vacation of the entered here- filing trial had for new motion time in because tbe original petition, filing expired tbe tbe before petition, grounds to-wit, forth in the tbe because set by defendant tbe committed that fraud was company is not substantiated suit trial tbe at tbe support proof. contention coun- In of tbis last rely upon assertion of counsel tbe for defendant sel relying petition plaintiff be is in tbe amended for upon particu- Remington’s 464 of Code and section prac- larly as follows: ‘for fraud subdivision thereof obtaining party judgment.’ tbe successful ticed by plain- that tbe claim for defendant contends perjured Counsel introduced tbe trial tiff that tbe court to va- would not authorize tbe defendant authority be- of 464 Rem., under cate tbe perjury and that it has been held fraud, cause perjured by proper supreme our court evidence is not a judgment. . cause for vacation . . “I if am inclined to believe tbe at- document petition as B tached to tbe amended Exhibit as above quoted bad been before tbe court at tbe time tbe court passed right of tbe defendant finance tbe deficiency judgment, that to a tbe information therein would have received considerable set forth attention. *15 “In in view of all of record I feel tbe tbis case vacated, should be and a tbe new trial many granted, pre- end that tbe of the matters now sented and which were not evidence at tbe of time may determining rights trial, tbe considered tbe litigation.” parties of tbe tbis (7) Accordingly, May Judge Kirby on 1933, en- vacating granting tered an order tbe decree and newa trial.

(8) again Tbe cause came on for trial tbe before testify A. Batchelor. Bond did not Honorable Chester any writing In fact, trial. no' one at tbis obligated whereby pay deficiency himself to judgment. Judge opin- Batchelor filed a memorandum in which be ion, said: expressed by “I adhere to the view me at the time cross-complainant trial, that the not defendant is deficiency judgment entitled ato herein. view only supported by (Sections the statute 1114 and 1119), Bradley Engineering the case etc. v. Co.

Muzzy, language 54 Wash. 227, but also question instrument herein.” (9) Judge accordingly Batchelor entered a decree declaring mortgage, foreclosing the deed to abe it as ordering property satisfy such, and sold to Friendly Company amount advanced Finance any provi- to Sorenson. The decree did not contain deficiency. sion for a

(10) complaint After had been made to the Wash- ington testify- State Bar Association of his conduct ing as Judge Kirby, did in the trial before Bond containing following: wrote a letter explanatory my testimony say more than “As will I only saw this instrument once which prior three months the trial said action. It de- veloped at the trial that the instrument had been lost misplaced. gave or my testimony good I faith and honestly they may I facts as believed were. I have signature. been mistaken to Mr. Sorenson’s IYet quite feel confident if the lost instrument were produced, signature that it would have thereon.” (11) Judge Kirby before Yet his positive unequivocal the issue. He testified: agreement copy Mr.

“I saw a of this Abel’s office first one forenoon when we had our conference. It plead- prepared before the answers were ings, and closed a time be- when the conference short go noon Mr. Abel anxious to to Aberdeen and fore pro con and we went over the items when several agreement got we down noticed the signed by parties. *16 there ... I know signature; stop it I Mr. Sorenson’s to read the was there. did not hurry. were in a because we (cid:127) April, .1 know 1931, . . the contract was dated guar- propositions a in it as had certain I know it and anty glanced through not read it I did but carefully,^ obligations what sides, on both had I know it at but it, to do.” do and what was to following questions again an- find the And we : swers say you you did see that Now Atwell: “Mr. Absolutely is and there

know existed? Mr. it Bond: con- question And are sure it Q. no tained it. about promise pay? know And Q. to A. Tes. a Absolutely signed I know his it? A. Mr. Sorenson ’’ any signature man. business as well as undisputed light it facts, seems these Now, argument require no to the recommen- to me to sustain governors suspension for one board of dation of the — theory year. To Bond on the that there exonerate Mr. “might been” still third “must been” or have have personally obligated instrument deficiency judgment, pay is to invite reck- himself to testimony attorneys from if not who take false, less, in behalf of clients. The best the witness stand their proof no such instrument ever existed is third fact that neither Bond nor the of his client had officers temerity the witness stand and swear its to take Judge existence in before Batchelor. the trial given If Bond in before the trial Judge Kirby perjury did not under Rem. amount to [P. § it Stat., § 9032], Rev. C. least fla- grant Ethi- Archer, violation of canons of ethics. Obligations Lawyer, cal § 123; Ethics, Code Washington Bar Asso- American Bar Association and 22. canons ciation, attorney questionable practice for an best,

At testify behalf of his client on material issue controversy. duty so, When he does it is his profession scrupulously court, himself, and to *17 keep testimony Ms witMn the In his truth. bounds essay Legal p. Judge says: Ethics, Sharswood hardly ought practitioner “It need be added that a particularly dealings to be cautious, all his imposition, court, use no deceit, or evasion—to make no statements facts which he not know or be- does distinguish carefully lieve to be true —to what lies in knowledge merely Ms own from what has derived present paper-books from his instructions —to no in- ‘ ’ tentionally garbled. says Sir Hale abhorred, Mathew biographer, his ing ‘those too common faults misrecit- quoting precedents falsely, witnesses, or books asserting anything confidently; by ignorant juries, judges wrought upon.” weak too are often light (under Considered in the most favorable admission), given own Mr. Bond’s with- knowledge out to which he facts testified and in disregard reckless of the truth. gover-

I think the recommendation of the board nors should be sustained.

Main, J., concurs with J. Blake, (dissenting-) the main I J. am Geraghty, —While disposed Judge interpretation accept Blake’s purposes discipline I feel the record, will reprimand well from served court as from, suspension practice year for a as recommended governors. the board of ' my (dissenting) opinion, J. Mr. Bond Beals, —In reprimanded. should be