In Re Heirich

aside or transactions made and entered setting voiding under terms and conditions which many years into ago were then reasonable and understood all fair, parties this transaction.

The decree of the trial court is affirmed.

Decree affirmed. (No. 33455 . Heirich, Attorney, E. Respondent. re Bruneau

Opinion Rehearing 20, June denied March filed 195 6

Davis, J., Hershey, C.J., Schaefer, J., dissenting. L. H. Vogel, Chicago, respondent. amicus curiae. Chicago, Levitón,

ChareES Per Curiam: This ais to strike proceeding respond- ent Heirich’s name from the roll of attorneys pursuant Court Rule Supreme On a formal com- 29, 1950, June 59. was filed plaint the committee injury personal prac- tice of the Bar its Chicago chairman, Association, signed charging substance, had been guilty conduct and practices tending bring legal profession into and had disrepute, solicited professional employment directly runners and employed had touters, divided fees for services legal with not admitted persons of law. The practice also complaint incorporated communication lengthy forth George setting Ericlcsen charges greater This particularity. communication charged respondent, with the substance, following misconduct: 1. He solicited improperly cases for Robert Mc- J.

Donald and William DeParcq with McDon- conspired ald and others to enable McDonald law Illinois practice without a license.

2. He solicited improperly cases for himself. He asked clients improperly clients to prospective

3. solicit cases for him and did they so solicit. He improperly employed runners to so- professional

licit claims for him and did so solicit. He made false statements under oath in the case

5. of Stanford v. Pennsylvania R. in the R. Co. court of com- mon pleas Cambria County, Pennsylvania. filed

Respondent motions in the dismiss alternative, to

361 denied, and to strike from the files the which were complaint, and a motion for a bill of was granted which particulars, the motion to strike was directed part. against letter unsworn and charged George Ericksen Erick- sen the was not a or Chicago person aggrieved president Bar on or Association. believe the committee State We the above motions and other overruled grievances properly the technical motions presented respondent during course of This in a similar hearing. court, proceeding entitled In re Needham, Ill. at held: “A 65, 68, page 364 in a matter this kind is not common hearing governed rules law or the rules which are observed in pleading criminal cases. re District (In Sanitary Attorneys, Ill. 351 have inherent 206.) Courts and summary jurisdiction over attorneys at their bars. re (In practicing Day, 181 Ill. 73, 87; Moutray People, v. 162 194.) Ill. was Jurisdiction in the vested commission to hear the The re proceeding. was spondent given notice of a definite charge against was heard in his own him, behalf, and was of no deprived right which he was entitled Mack, under the re law. (In Ill. It is 343.) asserted that not every member of 360 commission voted submitted upon to the court. report That was not essential. The majority committee voted for the and that report, was sufficient.” In the case re Lenox, In filed a Ill. motion 505, 371 to dismiss the on the that it original complaint ground signed by as Rule complaining required party of this court. Thereupon supplemental complaint 59 signed by was filed complaining party forth the setting detail. The charges greater claimed it error begin proceeding faulty dismiss complaint, it then proceed unverified upon without a complaint preliminary hearing investigation. answer to such claim, page court “This stated: contention cannot be sustained.” Also see In re Carr, Ill. 140 and In re Anderson, Ill. 362 filed an to a answer general

Respondent amounting denial of the and that seven affirmatively charges, alleging railroads and major financed an organized organization as known the Railroad Research Bureau for the Claims of and purpose destroying respondent’s reputation practice. It was further the said Claims Bureau hired alleged the and George retained investigate respondent, Ericksen a former member committee on Joseph Taussig, of the injury Association, of personal practice Bar Chicago to make and prosecute complaint against respondent, and that the instant is in fact carried on proceeding being certain by railroads. then by

Proofs were taken committee on grievances of the Bar Association, as commissioners of Chicago sitting this court Court Rule pursuant Supreme Hearings 59. had at various were times from Proofs through 1953. were closed on taken under October and the case 20, 1953, advisement after oral on December argument entire record case and consists over 6600 pages the abstracts filed before us consist over 1200 pages.

The committee on found that evidence grievances offered sustained all of the substantially charges against respondent, disbarred, recommended that the be and filed their in this report court. has filed to the

Respondent exceptions which set report forth in substance that the of the commissioners findings contrary to the of the and further weight evidence, that the entire were instituted and conducted proceedings by of the paid Railroad employees Claims Research Bureau, that some of the commissioners were members of firms in of interested employ railroads, that the commissioners conducted in a and hearing prejudicial manner, evidence was procured by of the representatives railroads by deceit fraud, trickery, promise reward, and was unworthy of credence.

“The as an privilege appearing courts attorney only taken away of this this court and granted State ex rel. enactment.” statutory (People court or ne Because of Hassakis, Andrews v. 6 Ill.2d 463, 468.) cessity disciplinary of lengthy investigations hearings we conduct, matters which this court could not personally Bar the board of the Illinois State appointed governors the board Association and its committee on grievances, its com Bar Association managers Chicago mittee for the as of this court commissioners grievances tend which attorneys purpose investigating practices to defeat to the administration of or justice bring and and courts into These boards legal profession disrepute. committees serve without or adequate grati compensation tude. setWe for the up procedures complaints filing and if take empowered and, commissioners to proofs, action this court is first by to so recommended, We report. made this and set general appointment up procedure order by of court dated It was formally April into Rule incorporated at the term. April, 1938, 59 Rule we By have not abandoned our function to the 59 and their commissioners, will take recommendations as ad- and examine all the in only, will evidence the case. visory in this case have examined Accordingly we conscientiously record and lengthy abstracts, with together report commissioners. It serve useful would no purpose to set forth the vast amount of contradictory testimony but we feel set record, forth some of the compelled most evidence in the record. In so we will pertinent doing, first confine ourselves to the major charges against respond- he ent—that Robert McDonald to conspired permit license; law Illinois without a that he testified practice in a court in im- falsely and that proceeding; engaged solicitation proper himself and through agents.

As to the first it is undenied that charge, respondent adid deal of work for McDonald and great DeParcq; he filed numerous suits for them in both individu- Illinois, and There is evidence that

ally, as co-counsel DeParcq. and had stated he worked for Mc- settlement cases filed ; Donald some negotiations carried McDonald and settlement out sent to is that Mc- checks McDonald. There also evidence Donald once disbarred Minnesota later rein- and that he stated, was twice refused admission to the bar of this it further at all However, that, State. appears times here, material McDonald was a of the Min- member bar nesota the Illinois was member of bar. DeParcq curiae Amicus on the fact that places damaging implications after McDonald’s death some of his purchased furniture and was certain cases to assigned try allegedly McDonald’s of Mc- regard executor. purchase We Donald’s furniture as without by respondent significance. The between attorney client relationship personal and the with the in- death right practice expires dividual of a lawyer. deceased personal representative is without lawyer cases to counsel right assign pending of his choice. (Canon American, Illinois, Chicago Bar choice would rest with the Associations.) Such client, and the record in this case does not indicate its presence absence.

We believe that the evidence fails to show conspiracy to permit McDonald to law in Illinois practice without a license. The attacks McDonald’s upon which are reputation, the conclusively cannot be supported by evidence, attri- buted to association. respondent as acting local for counsel as lucrative as that McDonald, association have might was not been, respondent the ethics violating We find can no profession. showing improper motive or in this illegal conspiracy record.

The accusation of false relates to 'an incident in the court of common pleas County, Cambria Pennsyl- vania. had been instituted on Suit behalf of one Stanford, an the incompetent, against Pennsylvania Railroad Com- filed a for pany. guardian petition compromise, Stanford’s settle the that defendant had offered to case stating claims for attorneys’ $36,000, up setting conflicting Barnhart and Buffalo. The alleged fees between respondent, false statements occurred on testimony by respondent After the August 31, 3, September charges 1948. that wilfully maliciously made had respondent made false under to the statements oath effect he was not with McDonald associated Robert prior 18, that in did March 1947, except have sent who later formed by DeParcq, cases with McDonald, McCann, Hon. partnership H. John sat as en who banc judge presiding hearing addressed a letter petition, the commis- sioners which on the fully explained proceedings peti- tion and concluded with statement “The that, charge * ** your before committee we feel is pending entirely and not unfounded substantiated trans- anything before this court said pired This letter was hearings.” dated January 3, 2, On January attorney 1951, 1951. for the filed a take petition deposition the court at the reporter, who Edgar Leahey, present No action was proceedings. taken on this until petition after the had died. ageing Leahey However, on March 9, 1951, the obtained the ex investigator parte Ericksen certi- fication of the at which time it transcript proceedings, was certified nunc tunc as pro This September of the testimony rejected was first transcript the com- but missioners, in November, 1952, Taussig, attorney for the took the complainant, of the other two depositions sitting judges, Griffith and Judges refreshed McKendrick, their recollection from the rejected and obtained transcript, substantial corroboration of the as it insofar transcript showed denied a close association McDonald.

Of considerable is the significance testimony of Arthur Foster who is the assistant chief claim agent L. behalf Railroad On Pennsylvania Company Chicago. interested in the court employer proceeding testified that he in Cambria Foster County, Pennsylvania. traveled on the same train their trip and enroute discussed eastward, freely respondent’s with McDonald as his local counsel association Chicago. It does not seem reasonable that would state on one occasion to the claim the Pennsylvania agent Railroad that he had been associated with Mc- frequently Donald and on the next under oath very day testify he did not know McDonald and in a do so proceeding where Foster he was vitally which present interested. the risk of unduly

Assuming opinion, prolonging find it we from the record on several necessary quote The first occasions. touches unreliability Leahey’s Richard Finn had as transcript. resigned and was cross-examined by counsel being Taussig. That “Mr. Taussig: all. a minute,

Commissioner Mr. Finn. Do Shaw: Just recall the last here you you made when appearance you notified commissioners were you your withdrawing in this case as counsel for ? Do appearance you recall that occasion?

The Witness: IYes, do. you

Commissioner You remember then stating Shaw: had a statement wished to make and as far as you you were concerned it could either be on or off the record ? don’t Witness: I recall whether it was on saying or off but record, I recall that I desired saying making statement that I wanted to thank the committee for their fairness and manner of treatment of me as counsel for the defendant. Is that what you to ? referring

Commissioner Yes. Shaw: That is all I have. Yes, Commissioner Shaw: you. Thank Mr. Vogel: One moment.

Mr. Taussig: The whether it on. I don’t care goes Witness: the It isn’t on record. Commissioner Shaw: the record. It is now of Mr. Vogel: part the fair- the same lines as to Q. Mr. Taussig: Along often the had discussed do recall that and I ness, you you the Leahey the of Mr. question taking depositions various Edensburg? judges that is That we came recall about this:

A. What I Leahey back the manner which very much encouraged by an this was not accurate had admitted forthrightly transcript. as that be stricken not respon- I will move Taussig:

Mr. sive to the question. think

The Witness : I it is responsive. I will that statement of witness Vogel: adopt Mr. for the as a statement of counsel respondent.

The Witness: And I recall— a read minute, question, Commissioner Shaw: Just please. was (The read.) question (cid:127) motion granted. Strike

Commissioner Shaw: the statement.” in a atti- friendly was Finn

When Taussig, thinking adverse he received an further commendation, tude, sought Finn’s statement was issue. comment on a most important it “hearsay” objection being vulnerable ground under the circum- it had, nevertheless responsive, Barren the truth. all the stances, being appearances truth to submerge technicalities should not be allowed of this character. proceedings a judicial confines To avoid reasonable exceeding cases submitted we shall only typical consider opinion, re Ill. the solicitation (In Mitang, charge. support of solicitation, 311.) support charge prosecutor The witness, first introduced the case. Woodside Taussig Herman man while Woodside, injured working young after testified that he left Railroad, Santa Fe one C. Brown came to see him stated O. hospital Minnesota, since McDonald of who had repre Minneapolis, had died, sented railroad many injured respond employees, was ent and then over, Woodside taking persuaded go to see There had the witness Brown Chicago respondent. then examined took Turner, Dr. and introduced him to Brown who,

office respondent, stated, further testified capable lawyer. Woodside said and that he would case big like to have it, usual form Woodside whereupon signed After of contract. his refreshed having memory by prose cutor recalled that Brown stated Taussig, Woodside also he, was Brorvn, representing although respondent, Woodside did not know how statement Brown into fitted the conversation. At the time settled Woodside case, contrary advice, but at a respondent’s figure than that substantially higher originally him, offered Wood- side at his refused, father’s suggestion, sign paper that his case had been stating solicited. Woodside’s father mother, and wife corroborated his in re testimony to Brown’s his visits, and mother also gard stated that all and that her lawyers crooks, because son employed lawyer a he was unable to with the railroad procure job any more.

On cross-examination Woodside admitted that his reten- tion came as a about result of the commenda- tion Waller, fellow on the employee injured same day, was who in an hospitalized bed in the adjoining Fe Santa Hospital, Kansas. Topeka, Woodside admitted that he Waller to have requested Brown call him. That ad- upon mission was corroborated by testimony of Graham and who Wood- Chicago lawyers, investigated McElligott, side and other and who on behalf respondent, complaints a statement from in which he admitted took Woodside the re- due entirely employment statement commendation of a fellow employee. but was admitted as true. unsigned, Woodside We believe at this it would be for us to well point describe the those two in the lawyers part played prepa- ration of defense. Both Graham Errett are lawyers McElligott standing good Chicago, John the former a friend of who had been asso- ciated with in several cases. Respondent employed Graham and to interview and take statements McElligott from all former clients that were listed as witnesses him. Graham was against but his paid nothing expenses, while per received a diem of ex- McElligott besides $50, penses.

The lawyer made a written memorandum investigators of all relevant aspects conversations. In some in- stances the person refused to being interrogated sign statement but never was there a refusal predicated upon reason that the statement did not contain truth. These statements were introduced in evidence and used frequently by Graham and to refresh their McElligott recollection their It is to note proceeding. significant that many that were complaints filed originally by Erick- sen were not and no urged witnesses were called in support of them. No doubt the effective work of Graham and Mc- had some Elligott on this bearing phase prosecution. We have discovered in the that record would nothing cause us to believe that both these lawyers not com- honest in pletely their and in their investigation testimony with reference thereto. was well aware that Respondent there were a few and perhaps disappointed disgruntled clients, who, under the influence of Ericksen, be might per- suaded to from the deviate truth. To with such a cope these possibility employed lawyers to him and accompany such in his interrogate persons presence. also offered the case prosecution of Walter Wood, testified that

who him respondent while the telephoned latter was in Rock, Arkansas, Little Hawkins trying case, and that solicited respondent his case when he came out see him at to his home. Wood also stated that Brown came to see him several and times, that he finally agreed come to and Chicago sign Wood’s wife up. testified that when they were in office he showed her papers and where he had obtained clippings There settlements. was introduced letter also* sent by Woods O. C. Brown that had recommended stating they to an respondent in- and a letter jured from employee, Brown enclosing $25 for their in the Maulden expenses assisting case. offered the rebuttal, respondent testimony Webb, a fellow with whom was employee Wood and acquainted, was treated for injuries who at the time being of Wood’s Webb testified that he and hospitalization. Wood visited were in the they while and that daily on a hospital, trip from to Wood’s home St. discussed Louis Wood’s and Wood asked Webb whether he had injury, employed and Webb lawyer, replied care respondent taking his case. also testified that Webb wrote him Wood he had called at his hotel while he Little Rock Hawkins case. trying is corroborated Webb’s statement ob- Wood Graham tained from investigators McElligott. In that statement also admitted that Wood he noticed re- name in an article a local spondent’s newspaper reporting the trial of the Hawkins case, requested see before left town, on January came to Wood 25, 1949, Chicago employed respondent. Wood refused statement sign made penciled it not because did not investigators, contain truth but claims said he to assert other against because Wood expected the railroad. letter written by also offered a prosecutor

Respondent it which after from testified, had Wood, Wood Taussig authority, without had, could be that Ericksen implied which that his Wood promised pass privileges, hospital suit, been he filed had the railroad when withdrawn by be if This would restored he testified against respondent. letter am certain must have misunderstood stated, you “I him when he told that you say you your would you get back. had no so to do.” rights authority Mr. Ericksen duces tecum issued for subpoena Taussig, response letter Wood’s stated that it The him, was lost. record shows that clearly was vindictive and dis- Wood angry, He claimed that he was overreached in his appointed. settlement in that he his senior- negotiations deprived ity made him the contrary to pass rights promises railroad claim and his local counsel in He agents St. Louis. further claimed that he when the releases the claim signed for the railroad and agent local counsel Feigen- baum held the documents covered such a that he did way not know what he A of the signing. reading on this of the case convinces us that the aspect negotiators the release acted and that surrendered properly Wood his railroad but rights reluctantly Only week later knowingly. he wrote letter to which contradicts completely claim of been overreached any having deceived. Wood undertakes to the effect of this letter that escape by saying his wife the letter wrote and that he did not dictate it or know its necessarily contents. also offered in prosecution support charge

solicitation Deans a claim case, involving TWA against for the death aof man killed in a TWA young accident on back way from war service. The boy’s father testified he that first met when the latter came to his home and introduced he himself, would like stating to have the case since he had cases of other boys killed in accident and it would better if look were all handled Deans did together. replied like the idea of come to and that having him, then stated they that were respondent reputable lawyers and would after the airlines and go railroads, big corpora- tions. also stated that Respondent they allegedly to see the was going family Lyons boy, who killed in the same and accident, showed Deans from clippings papers about different cases that they Deans, won. convinced it all was to have the then right respondent case, signed the contract. Thereafter Deans and went to respondent the county court tO' letters of administration. procure the testimony also offered of Deans’s

Taussig daughters, and who both testified in Viola, Ellen substance that re- called them if spondent and asked would like upon to they their take brother’s case. up showed Respondent allegedly them checks from other cases and that talk suggested it over with their dad. The went day Viola to following Hotel in Louis, where respondent St. Jefferson him and told that her dad said that he did staying, want to have the case. testified that she never She asked or other to to her any lawyer come home. respondent

In introduced the rebuttal, testimony of Wil- liam Mine Lyons, vice-president Work- Progressive local ers and in Illinois General Assem- representative in which stated that had met several bly, he he Deans times miners’ in he December had a conventions, Deans in the Odd Hall in conversation with Fellows which told him his Deans about son killed and asked if he being to know a in that lawyer Lyons, field. happened response Deans’s him a called re- request get good lawyer, said he and see who would down Deans. spondent, go denied such conversation with Deans, however, any Lyons, recommend a he never asked anybody stated that to him. lawyer sup- the Hawkins offered case, prosecution Hawkins, it the solicitation

port charge, appears the Missouri Pacific injured brakeman an accident on behalf of testified to an solicitation on Railroad, alleged his and stated original O. C. Brown, to the additional local counsel, attorney, employ- agreed ad- ment of On Hawkins cross-examination, respondent. had mitted that he talked on with Swaim, engineer train his accident. which about served, Swaim testi- deceased at the time of the but Mrs. hearings, Swaim fied on behalf Hawkins telephoned or and that told May Swaim when she Haw- June two, kins that would home in a day return Swaim her Hawkins told that he had called have ask Swaim Brown to come his because he to discuss home wanted injury claim.

Graham testified that admit- Hawkins McElligott ted that he recommenda- employed respondent Swaim’s tion. The statement of the summary conversation between Hawkins and and Graham was McElligott agreed to but not signed Hawkins.

The record contains a that a Hawkins was suggestion and rather disappointed litigant was critical of respondent because he did not try his case nor handle the from appeal an adverse result. did not for Hawkins Respondent appear at the second trial because of handle nor did he the illness, as because, he appeal explained lawyer Hawkins, who tried the case could better do had been so. Hawkins injured previously and he had received substantial damages for such injuries. We from the glean record thought that this factor some played deliberation, the jury’s part for on the first trial there and was on the disagreement second there was a verdict of not guilty.

Another case and that respondent enterprisingly sought is Ruth obtained that Francis Bick of Bick McNichols. J. anwas and engineer employed by Elgin, Eastern Joliet and killed in an accident. Bick’s since widow, Railroad was calls his after remarried, respondent repeated employed Howard Curtin. The commissioners their representative, testimony of findings completely ignored Riley R. J. of a life friend of the and one Joliet, Bick long family who had had and socially many dealings respondent, testified that he attended the deced- Riley professionally. ent’s wake and there he Bick’s father and talked with brother. The decedent’s father of about inquired Riley advice for the son’s volunteered to con- legal family. Riley Heirich tact and enlist his interest in case. A careful and testimony of both on direct on search- Riley’s reading convinces us his cross-examination that was ing testimony His belief. contradicted no worthy testimony one. He was a story whose about person prominence affair was no' the commissioners impeached respect. Why chose to ignore explained.

Harold who lived at Guderjan, A. testi- Toluca, Illinois, fied that he was while injured September working for that Railroad; Fe about two weeks after Santa called on him accident, at Mary’s hospital St. Illinois, said that he Galesburg, was representing McDonald, DeParcq Davis, Brother- attorneys hood Railroad Trainmen; that him his respondent gave bunch card, showed him a letters, clippings photo- static copies settlements, said would like to handle his case; Guderjan told not interested in an securing and that attorney stated he would call again; about two weeks later re- called on at the spondent Guderjan while Mrs. hospital Guderjan was that on this occasion present; respondent talked further left case and a concerning contract for to and that Guderjan named sign attorneys in said and Davis; Guder- DeParcq contract were McDonald, McDonald, De- was not jan acquainted respondent, them to call and of Davis, did not Parcq request any the brother- did not member of any and request upon of brotherhood hood to have any legal representative call him. upon is a and garage

Walter Dew testified that he present service station the time in question owner, during treasurer brakeman on the and Fe, secretary Santa of the it Brotherhood of and as such Trainmen, Railroad was his to office at Cleveland of duty notify general member injured of the He that he con- any testified lodge. tacted and who in DeParcq McDonald turn Minneapolis, notified Heirich Guderjan. to call on called respondent Dew and to meet him at a hotel in agreed Galesburg asked Dew to him to the meet Guder- accompany hospital train jan. was one and one-half hours Respondent’s late, and Dew was to leave for work compelled before arrival, so went to the alone. In evidence hospital is a letter from the Brotherhood Railroad Trainmen acknowl- of Dew’s edging Guderjan’s receipt report injury reference of the containing availability aid legal department brotherhood.

In the case of Vincent Melargno, commissioners “The record shows clear and found, convincing proof solicited the Vincent case di- Melargno A rectly careful personally Chicago.” reading record discloses that there is no evidence to support charge.

In the other solicitation cases but not refer- presented, red there was opinion, testimony relating conduct aggressive the cases re- procurement or his spondent investigator, O. C. rebuttal Brown, admissions evidence of the witnesses that they heard friends or through acquaintances and themselves requested his or statements participation, of friends and 376 of the witnesses that had they recommended

acquaintances after if asked knew of a they lawyer. respondent being good offered evidence no of fraud or over- prosecution of clients. The only of reaching respondent’s suggestion such conduct in the was Felter where there had case, been tacit fee agreement would no on the respondent charge first received Felter railroad, from but after $5000 Felter settled with the directly railroad himself for the sum of a sum $5250, less than that demanded considerably in his a fee then respondent negotiations, $1000 authorized to Felter admitted on cross-exam- respondent. ination that he was “mad” at worth.” respondent “$1000

At the commencement of these there were proceedings made All many charges impugning respondent’s integrity. such counts were dismissed with 1No. exception which accuses connection with respondent perjury in the court of common of Cambria hearing pleas County, Pennsylvania.

In addition to the and evidence, foregoing judges as lawyers character witnesses and either testi- appeared or had ed their made the matter subject of stipu- lations on behalf effect that had they known for a considerable number respondent years; knew the with he worked; whom that his people repu- tation for the honorable and ethical of law is practice good; that his for reputation honesty integrity good; has a good for and in- reputation honesty in the tegrity community. the interest of we brevity shall not list the names of all these witnesses. is un- It controverted that many of the have been deemed judges “well qualified” well “very for their officesin qualified” bar association evaluations and overwhelmingly approved bar The list polls. includes attorneys bar association past presidents other as officers, well as esteemed members of the profession.

The evidence also reveals that head Carney, of the Rail- question road Reference Bureau, Claims response “In Bruneau any your dealings he than as an Heirich has ever dealt with otherwise you and ethical said ?”, say honorable “I would practitioner has never than as a dealt other question gentleman, ethical and moral.” evaluation of

Carney’s respondent’s reputation men. shared other railroad claims The witness Thomas for the Smiley, W. general adjuster Burlington seven who knew some Railroad, years, the in his question to of whether or not response dealings he ever with found to be than other an respondent ethical and stated never lawyer, I found practitioner “No, him otherwise. He was always with me.” equitable

The witness claims Muldoon, M. for the attorney E. North & Milwaukee Shore Railway Company, past of the Association of president Railway Claims Agents, to the “In replied question, your with dealings Heirich, Mr. ever you did find him other than an ethical as a practitioner lawyer by ?” stating “Well, my relations with him have always been have satisfactory. I not known of un- any ethical kind any so far as practice our cases were concerned.”

The witness Walter Ross, the law firm partner Peterson Eckert, Lowry, & for attorneys American Air- lines and Transcontinental & Western Airlines, who knew for seven years, stated: “I respondent would say that in Mr, my with Bruneau Heirich dealings I have always found him to be honorable.” commissioner Hurd

Moreover, stated that “we are as- handled the case as he suming received init fashion and in no perfectly proper failed way to get the maximum out of it.”

The record here clearly shows that the charges by and the George Ericksen prepared prosecution con- by attorney ducted both of the Taussig, Railroad employees in Research Bureau. This was organized Claims group or five railroads. It by solicitors of four general It was later to include at least 21 railroads. expanded funds and retained an attorney handled investigator facts solicitations and evidence surrounding present probe to bar associations. The worked investigator budget about was $20,000 year. employed Ericksen George the bureau in instructed to report committee on injury practice work personal bar. The bureau met with Chicago president and its amicus curiae here, bar general counsel, An offer was made the bar association money to give “ambulance chasers.” This offer was but refused, prosecute alternative that the bureau employ proposal Ericksen to work with the committee, Taussig adopted. There is substantial evidence in undenied record, that he to ruse and artifice resorted Ericksen, investigator There former clients of is di- approaching respondent. rect evidence attempted entrap Ericksen himself as a relative of a killed in an person representing There is uncontradicted evidence accident. ample that Ericksen, to convince this court record acting Bar was more in- Association, Chicago credentials than in disbarring terested determining also introduced himself to other clients of facts. Ericksen as the from United Claims Department, States General’s office. also con- Attorney and from the Ericksen clients current many respondent, expressing tacted great that for services them, explaining respondent’s solicitude value because “he would soon be dis- questionable were of barred.” been made to has unau- already

Reference Ericksen’s testi- of reward to witness Wood for thorized promise from letter written Taus- such being implied fying, also shows that drove The record to Wood. Ericksen sig suburban home out to view palatial respondent’s Woodside to testify, arrival Chicago Woodside’s immediately upon inflame whatever which claims was designed bore animosity witness respondent. exhibit further

We take notice judicial a of the the commissioners, 48, rejected by being report committee on Retirement to the senate Railroad Board directly we believe bears Interstate which Commerce, a That shows course proceeding. report general conduct attitude of railroads highly antagonistic all toward retain counsel to defend their who employees in Federal settled liability cases rights; employers’ without returned to work counsel, employees 97% for the if suit railroad; while was from filed, 80% 96% of such lost their In that connection employees jobs. witness Woodside and his mother admitted, reiterated, because he retained wouldn’t let him “they railroad any more,” and further stated that told Ericksen him when he first came down to see him railroads were out to1 and that was get Heirich, he, Ericksen, down there for the bar association to disbar This was respondent. undenied although at all constantly Ericksen present The hearings. states “In some report cases in- part: the claim deed, much further agents go threats implied that if suit is the claimant would never be able filed, to work any big would receive company again, references so unfavorable as to amount to fur- blacklisting.” report ther states: “The for all cases which bar- experience could be measured these terms is gaining summarized in table cases nonattomey resulted in bargaining settlement which on average higher 60% 78% than the initial offer. an Where attorney was engaged, initial bid was on the more than average doubled before the case was closed. In cases where the attorney felt it ad- visable and persuaded his client to file suit, the gross

amount recovered was on the three or more times average than the named the larger claim figures originally by agent.” The the director of Railroad Claims Research Bureau that the indicates at least one of railroads the claimants even with when adopted practice settling they knew was the claimant at lawyer representing the time.

We are this to the conclusion that compelled proceeding was more than an of unethical impartial investigation prac- a bar by tices association the sole desire to the protect and the that it record indicates public profession. an the adversary between railroads one of proceeding their The time the railroads antagonists. energy devoted to this well have been in proceeding might spent a code ethics railroad claim adjusters for perfecting its the activities of observance, requiring improper claim adjusters climate which solicitation of develop may thrive. type complained proceeding also refers to of the record where

Respondent portions objection over to coach was allowed prosecutor Taussig witnesses and Hawkins Woodside, referring Wood conversations and admissions made by allegedly previous the witnesses office. cites fol- Taussig’s Respondent how if to show Taussig permitted, lowing excerpt called commissioner, assisted recess to elicit statement from Brown “I am announced, Woodside Heirich.” Mr. representing recall this afternoon or this Do

“Taussig: you morning me had taken when were first intro- you told what you place duced ? counsel at time):

Finn: (Respondent’s Just and think question to the form of I object I will minute. it also. I think this is an substance of attempt— Refresh the witness’s recollection. Taussig: it than that. effect it is an im- is more No, Finn: of his own statement. peaching overruled. Objection Commissioner: did he say tomore say, Did have anything you Taussig: have any- or Brown Heirich did Mr. Mr. more, anything say? thing from me had a Heirich told Yes, report

Witness: Mr. arm Turner was serious. my pretty Dr. re- Taussig after which recess, called a

Commissioners sumed line of witness : inquiry time ever said done at the Was or anything Taussig: on March 20, 1948? ? You mean

Witness: while we signing before after or while you signed. Taussig: Yes, Witness: Yes, sir. was it

Taussig: What ? Brown said he Mr. Witness: was representing Mr. Heirich. When was that

Taussig: said? Witness: at first first when he came inside the Right door.”

On cross-examination the witness admitted that he did not know the remark why was made or how it fitted into the conversation. And then consider the in connec- foregoing tion with the Dorothy Woodside, Herman’s wherein mother, she stated that she was in Taus- present office sig’s when first asked Taussig Herman what was said when Brown opened up Heirich’s door. On cross-examina- tion this appears: And

“Q. Mr. Taussig explained Herman, did he not— Taussig:

Mr. I am (Interrupting) if that wondering is the form proper cross-examination. If counsel is testi- ifor fying witness is testifying.

Commissioner Hurd: I think this all is right. Finn: Mr. Q. Mr. Taussig explained to Herman at rhat time it necessary that he testify to a conver- sation, that conversation about Mr. Brown, T am saying, it to es- necessary because was Heirich,’ Mr. representing for Mr. or that Brown was working tablish Mr. agency, isn’t that true? Heirich, Yes.”

A. testified to the Herman On cross-examintion Woodside following: the investi-

“It is correct that I found out Brown made It is correct that sug- case. Waller Waller gation It is correct that that I let him case. my gested investigate told I it idea. don’t know whether I I thought good to have Brown call on me. That I don’t know Waller Mr. told that and Graham. It was I to McElligott whether next that I told to have call on me the fact Waller Brown time he saw or heard from him. That is true. asked to have call you Mr. Waller Brown

Q. So Mr. case the next see on to discuss time came to you your Waller. That is correct isn’t it? Mr. Yes believe it is.”

A. I sir, conclusion The is was not an inescapable Woodside witness. He admitted that he honest was mad because C.O. on him quit Brown after his case was calling He settled. admitted that he was in further his settlement disappointed he insisted which his action upon accepting notwithstanding to the advice of his father and contrary the respondent. a is a victim for disgruntled person ready Such subornation. end To that was available for Woodside exploitation. of on testimony Woodside Brown’s O. C. was un- agency questionably At this product coaching. Ericksen’s we can advert juncture, to three In re profitably cases, ex Florida Bar Rerat, 1; Minn. State rel. Association v. 332 Murrell, ex rel 221; Turner Denman, So.2d State v. 74 259 wherein it 891, was held that evidence adduced by S.W.2d an aby whose investigator paid interests are in corporation conflict with whose is objective to build a case is of limited against respondent value. ex Turner Denman, State rel. v. S.W.2d. acquitting ruling the chancellor’s the court

where approved solicitation, court with Denman, charged who had been “These evidence: that mode of procuring commented inter- their Their work. not were impartial investigators side of defendants on the ests and were sympathies their and there involved; suits where insurance was damage in- see how such It for this court to easy treasure lay. any lawyer find clients of could disgruntled vestigators statements. secure adverse flame could fanning a seldom does claimant in suit recover Very any damage him. trial or settlement fully satisfy an amount which will In such case can a in that field convince client specialist that his has been has lawyer conduct, unethical his client.” reference to properly represented With credibility of such evidence the think it court stated: “We very doubtful, bar association however, whether could rely with accuracy statements se- proper degree upon cured by investigators detectives who in the employ of a certain or class in- corporation whose corporations terests were directly conflict the interests clients under represented by lawyers investigation. Such be should investigations made and with a view impartially the truth ascertaining and not with the view building a case up defendants.” against

The court in the Murrell case also-considered as limited of any credibility evidence procured by investigators out paid by companies disbar an attorney, as in the instant case, approved referee’s condemnation therein of practice insurance permitting companies investi- the conduct gate of attorneys under of charge unprofes- sional conduct, that such noting was practice condemned in Bean, v. S.W.2d ex rel. State Schoolfield 167 Turner v. Denman, S.W.2d The court stated fur- 259 891. ther “It is : perfectly evident that these companies were out to make a case against should not have been such a permitted prominent in part trial.” directing Wood- the him that railroads told side’s Ericksen Heirich” uncontradicted. were “out to was get of of any question contends that, regardless Respondent before the commis- his or guilt innocence, proceedings the commission- vitiated because one of sioners were wholly several in a firm that ers was law represented partner American which Railroads, members of the Association of that are now costly financed association proceedings entitled to1be was before us. We agree in tried before a tribunal that disinterested was completely matter that it been subject would have appropriate have commissioner to himself. disqualified in do in hold fact, so we need not nor we law, doing, intimate that infected, or commissioner was particular or affected by consciously unconsciously, prejudice motivation other against respondent. is

It a classical of that no man principle jurisprudence has a who interest matter of decision personal subject in a case sit in on that may case. judgment is as to administrative principle applicable agents, commissioners, referees, masters or other arbi chancery, ters or fact not questions law office judicial holding itas those who are in the full sense technically judges word. We have so held recently Dept. v. Smith and Education, Registration In that case a Ill. license had been rescinded physician’s board com to- the prised physicians who, un according physician’s contradicted sworn were hostile statements, and to his of medical ideology We practice. said, page 343: “Charges of the prejudice committee part went undenied and were refuted only extent that the at for the torney assured Department that it appellant that the committee opinion would be fair. are entirely We opinion error in Department not se a different committee lecting to hear the instant case.”

385 ex rel. Alabama the case we followed so holding, A.L.R. 835, Miller 212 Ala. So. Aldridge, v. 39 annulled of Alabama In that case the Court Supreme accountant of a certified of a license public revocation board concurring members of the administrative because of the to that in the had interests antagonistic revocation Certified accountant. In that case the Alabama Society members of ad- society Public of which Accountants, board had money ministrative were contributed members, to the of the the accountant. against prosecution charges In this case the Association of American Railroads, firm which association clients of the were commissioner’s had contributed funds to the members, similarly prosecution of these proceedings against respondent.

We need not cite that if authority a venireman holding to be retained a in case in he which or the upon jury him company had a financial employed interest over the verdict would be set A appropriate challenge, aside. similar is principle applicable here.

For the guidance of this court’s commissioners in future cases and of all other to find required facts or persons apply law adversary proceedings, judicial administrative, we hold that when such an arbiter has a financial interest in the subject even matter, though be man personally most fastidious it is his probity, duty to recuse himself. He if must do so challenged.

The record shows that one of the commissioners who was asked recuse himself refused to do so, notwithstand- the fact that his law firm ing represented several railroads who were members association that financed and di- rected the prosecution of these proceedings. of his claim of

Respondent, support fur- partiality, ther notes that the record that the shows of the findings commissioners made no reference and no gave effect to the testimony character witnesses and all disregarded evi- dence favoring respondent without comments on its any credibility.

In the Bick case testified that Riley father and brother of Bick him authorized to contact have call on the If this credible, widow. then Heirich’s commenced investigator at the negotiations of the Bick request which of family, removes the course, case from the of “ambulance category have We chasing.” searched the record to find if either of the Bicks testified either or contradiction support of Riley’s testimony. We find that neither In of appeared. view enterprise Ericksen’s and zeal and the fact that the Bicks were with the friendly we feel that 'it prosecution, is the rule appropriate apply that there is a presumption against party failing pro- duce contradictory testimony. On behalf of respondent disinterested many witnesses testified that his employment result of his been having recommended friends and former The clients. Bick and Woodside, Wood, Hawk- ins cases heretofore considered are On count typical. every there was such In several of the proof. cases where former clients testified in support charges solicitation, they impeached by Graham and McElli- gott. of a purpose is disciplinary not for the proceeding of the

punishment attorney, but for the of the protection and maintenance of the public of the integrity profession and of the re (In court. Donaghy, 120; ex People Ill. 402 Bar Chicago rel. Association Lotterman, v. Ill. 399.) 353 This duty the court to' from protect public improper must not be practices exercised in a or despotic arbitrary manner but with legal discretion, and the must charges be sustained clear and convincing must proof not be product motives. In improper re Donaghy, Ill. 402 In 120; re Lasecki, Ill. 358

The canons of ethics of the State American Bar

387 en are not not binding obligations are Associations constitute however, they such; as the courts forced be attorney may an conduct and for safe guide professional Mitgang, In re them. observing disciplined 385 Ill. 311, 324. the canons of is infractions of

It evident that some the offense are while ethics more serious than others, venality, is not one solicitation of business which imports its moral fraudulent turpitude, prac criminality, practices re bar. (In is inimical to the of the tice reputation good Veach, 1 Ill.2d have refrained from however, 264). Courts, and have fre what constitutes such solicitation defining quently stressed the in determin motive solicitation ex Ass’n, its Bar ing People Chicago propriety. rel. 313 Ill. 601.

It has been held that the of an employment investigator is not unethical and that it cannot be inferred from such employment attorney in “ambulance engaged re re (In chasing.” Donaghy, 120; Mitgang, Ill. Ill. In the case the court stated at 311.) Donaghy page “Personal injury lawyers, representing plaintiffs 129: the most must part, staffs compete against investigatory of the large and insurance and must corporations companies necessarily hire for their own success.” investigators it has

Moreover, been held friends, acquaint and ances associates of the have the attorney unquestioned his right sound and praises to divert to him such clients as can in a persuade legitimate way to his serv engage (In ices. re at Mitgang, Inasmuch as courts p. 328.) are be expected to of those which ignorant other things men their through Holland, associations well know re (In Ill. we 346), know that each attorney depends upon friends and those who have his services and engaged legal any other number upon of circumstances his abil showing ity handle law business. In re at Mitgang, p. 329.

In the Donaghy case, where had recommended hospital a number of the court held that the respondent cases, relation between the bordered on the hospital Donaghy line between but since there was propriety impropriety, no evidence to establish any to which “arrangement” could be said to have been a party charges were dismissed. In other in the case some words, Donaghy was attached to importance the fact that there nowas proof had paid chasers sum of alleged any money. In the instant case there is no such proof. addition, record shows that the had prosecution bank respondent’s records, photostatic of his copies withdraw- deposits over a several als, year Heirich obtained period. many verdicts large If settlements. he substantial sums paid to alleged chasers, no doubt some of this would suggestion be reflected in his bank records. Respondent present all and could hearings have been asked about various with- if drawals any of evil suggestive practices.

In the M it gang case, where the attorney merely censured, had permitted about and investigators carry in accept name contracts of which would employment result in fees to the from the investigators paid recovery the personal action. such injury No evidence was adduced herein.

The prosecution’s defense an- reply chored in the oft-reiterated statement that did not take the stand to deny charges. coun- Respondent’s sel assumes in the briefs and in the oral before argument us full for his responsibility client’s failure to He testify. that the argues trial had taken four-year already heavy toll and that further before a tribunal that was proceedings less' than fair would result more increased persecution, loss of expense, business, etc., with little to be accom- plished thereby.

In our however defense opinion, would be respondent’s strengthened his failure testimony. cannot be Such as cannot reasoning deemed conclusive. We approve effect that the witnesses the commissioners’ to- the report because re- not be believed Graham and could McElligott that the truth. failed to were testify telling spondent them that told testified Woodside McElligott Graham had rather than that respondent sought respondent his testified on cross-examination solicited case. Woodside Yet that that is what he told just Graham McElligott. are un- lawyers commissioners report two take the stand of belief because did not worthy of them. support In addition to the rebuttal adduced re- testimony we should not overlook array spondent, impressive even railroad claims distinguished lawyers, judges men who adversaries this disbarment proceed- all who testified ethical unequivocally ing, and moral of his on the basis of associa- practice profession tion with over a years. period it is true that the

Although ordinary lawyer judge out will of his about go way say anything derogatory a fellow it is true that neither nor practitioner, judges will discommode themselves in numbers to lawyers large aid a difficulties unless practitioner following disciplinary of such subject worthy aid.

While we are of the decisions cognizant holding evidence will not overcome evidence good reputation if the offense establishing specific charges, particularly (In re Harris, involves moral turpitude Ill. 336), where the evidence is nevertheless, and the conflicting does not or moral charge criminality import turpitude court should to such give weight good repu tation.

In the case, also of solici- Mitgang involving charge after tation, absence of evidence court, noting fraud or clients, stated “Re- overreaching page 333: has offered evidence of his good reputation spondent 390

truth and his associates and professional standing among the before he whom which has judges practiced, weight motive is an element where of the offense charged.” have the this cause case complainants analogized In re Veach, at bar to 1 Ill.2d the 264, where for solicitation. of that record reveals A review suspended that the the therein were the clients of aggrieved trial ex had no evidence, Veach parties. According and maintained neither cases office, try no would perience nor able him. He was a notorious counsel to assist employ in the chaser contracts from the while injured obtaining while still under the influence of pain relieving hospital He would them to betray his clients drugs. persuading far the sum which the below to' quick settlements, accept testified in his clients would be entitled. No one normally behalf on trial.

The mere the facts reveals the dissimilar- statement of of the of any cases and ity analogy. inappropriateness case the herein were In contrast to proceedings Veach any instituted at the former not behest instigation former clients and his contrary, client. On commissioners, and even adversaries, agreed in an and able and at no handled his cases ethical manner, time ever clients or did inimical to his betrayed anything an able and success- their best His as interests. reputation trial herein Furthermore, ful lawyer good. to1refute His witnesses charges. offered independent in his cannot convert his con- failure to own behalf testify to the conduct on behalf of his clients repugnant, scientious herein actions of as Veach, complainant double-dealing case in the can decision Veach Therefore, suggests. no be deemed determinative. way condemn unethical and

It is the this court to duty are to our at- when brought practices unprofessional Yet this court by Rule tention in the manner prescribed the disbarment of an that inasmuch as has said repeatedly

391 his life, is the of his repu destruction attorney professional the court should livelihood, proceed tation and must be free from and the record moderation, caution but also to the as to the act doubt only charged, re Ill. Mitgang, with which it is done. (In motive is certainly “Ambulance 729.) chasing” 311; C.J.S. where condemnation, that deserves severe especially practice in fraudulent and the offenders are dishonest and engage that is Any practices. investigation designed overreaching should be improve standing legal profession dis but such an to be by encouraged, investigation ought interested commissioners of this court and should proceed interested any or from financial, without other, support Culkin, People As stated in v. by Cardozo party. Justice “If the house 162 487, N.Y. page N.E. 493: it is to be it is for those cleaned, who occupy govern than the work.” rather some to do noisome stranger of rail- There seems to be but what a question group no hired commenced this and that roads prosecution the the and secure to George prepare complaint Ericksen a conscience. This he to do without evidence. proceeded to this record are sure that we are not violence We doing the case that in against when we say Ericksen, constructing deceit, bribery, of subornation, guilty respondent, In the and false Wood- trickery, entrapment impersonation. indication that he was of side case there was every guilty in there an of subornation; the Wood case appearance en- in the case there was subornation; Bailey bribery he as a and in several instances deceit; posed trapment from the officeof the of Attorney General representative of Illinois. fair State A of build- example prosecution’s is contained in the case. ing process Pennsylvania Ericksen the authentication of an procured transcript prepared old man admittedly and one who acknowledged incompetent, that his this work was not accurate. The of absurdity lies in the testified fact that charge principally under oath that he McDonald did Robert when know in on had his the same day adversary he told previous he times had McDonald many proceeding represented as his oral local counsel. Chicago argument On association, for the Levitón, court asked Mr. counsel bar this answer do not explain His was “I improbability. believe I knew that that was the record.” And same it counsel’s credit added that when asked may be another member of court if approved Erick- sen’s he offered no tactics, excuse defense.

It further may be observed that when these proceedings were there initiated, moral many charges involving all but such turpitude, no counts, support finding evidence, were dismissed with the claim exception action, In our case law perjury. relating disciplinary find we are usually solicitation accom- charges dishonesty, some panied proof specie particularly where is failed to punishment prescribed. pro- Ericksen in- any duce that reflected adversely on proof respondent’s Hence, in the tegrity. prosecution’s desperation implicit reliance the Pennsylvania upon charge.

More the character of light found Ericksen fact that he finds it relevant as duties investigator visit to- current clients advise gratuitously them that it would be well for them to seek other counsel— “for Heirich will be soon disbarred.” On record con- almost in structed its such an we entirety by investigator, are asked to punish lawyer who bears a fine reputation ethical and honorable es- overwhelmingly conduct— tablished by than more the ablest forty members of the bench and bar of Chicago.

The has busi- respondent pursued personal injury ness and successfully We would be naive say aggressively. that his has not enterprise carried him an occasionally into area where his activity subject criticism. Notwith- of a standing peril continuation of Ericksen’s damaging take the we think that failure to operations, and censure. But this record testify justifies stand our does not contain clear and convinc- believable, reliable, in evidence that is this char- required ing proceedings of the commissioners should be acter. overruled report , respondent discharged. „ , and Respondent discharged. Mr. dissenting: Davis, Justice concur I that the fails majority record finding to establish that with McDonald and respondent conspired others to enable McDonald to law Illinois with- practice out a and that made false statements license, under oath in the case of Pennsylvania Railroad v. Stanford in the Co. court of common Penn- Cambria pleas County, but I dissent from the sylvania; majority that the finding record “does not contain the clear and believable, reliable, evidence that is convincing this required proceedings character” to warrant action disciplinary court, its from judgment without re- discharging save censure for to take the stand proach failing testify in this proceeding.

This dissent relates to the conclusion findings majority connection with the of solicitation charge or “ambulance These chasing.” deal with several charges different cases which concerning amounts of evi- varying dence were shall I offered. a detailed attempt analysis of all the evidence conflicting each regarding transaction, but shall refer to the briefly instances which I deem most in the voluminous important record. H. Wood

Walter Walter injured H. Wood August, while for the working Missouri Pacific Railroad. He testified called him and asked him if telephone he was the Walter H. Wood who-worked for the Missouri Pacific Railroad and who had a back injury, upon answered then came his being affirmatively, respondent in home North in Rock, Arkansas, November, Little At this time if asked his respondent Brown, man, O. C. had contacted Wood advised that such con- being tact had been made, told requested case, Wood and that this case big verdicts, was worth in testified that later $50,000 Chicago. Wood C. Brown O. came to his house, praised urged' respondent highly, him to come to to see the Chicago At respondent. time left Brown his card and told him the Wood give names and addresses of men any injured railroad would see that received a nice little Wood check for such testified service. Wood also made the same to- him. proposal Brown made a to the again trip Wood home and continued January, to- him to come urge to Chicago. On these calls Brown would discuss with Wood other cases he was and told him of trying get large verdicts the had obtained. In February, 1949, Wood wrote to- Brown him the name of Teeth giving Mauldin who had been injured. re- Wood June, 1950, ceived a check from Brown with a letter together $25 “O.C.” signed stating that, “I wish he had part gotten $100,000. Then we would have made some money.” Wood further testified that home; Cramer called at his Ludwig introduced himself; said he worked for in- respondent; quired certain area Missouri concerning Pacific Railroad who had been employees injured; and called them from the Wood home by to malee an telephone appointment. Subsequently, Wood went to where he and Brown Chicago met by prior agreement; thereafter, Wood a con- signed tract with The case was respondent. later settled by attor- ney Feigenbaum, who acted as local counsel for respondent Louis, St. Missouri. wife Wood’s corroborated her hus- band all material The solicitation respects. of Mauldin Woods is also corroborated by the Teeth Mauldin and his wife. The Woods were the in- inman the contact pro- Brown was O. C. formants this case. curing an affi introduced

To rebut this testimony, respondent he other executed the time that davit Wood at signed which office, settlement attorney papers Feigenbaum’s Attor recited that the case had not been solicited. Wood reference ney but made no testified, Feigenbaum specific of this circumstances the execution surrounding and attorney Robert affidavit, son, Feigen Feigenbaum’s instrument, who took the said baum, acknowledgment was as a testified that not called witness. However, Wood just he several did signed records; attorneys’ papers not read them; them; that he was rushed into that signing he did not swear meet a time; to' that did not anything Robert and did Feigenbaum not know Robert Feigen baum. The circumstances this surrounding signing affidavit re naturally detract from its force. In probative McCallum, Ill. 400.

Willie an Webb, Missouri Pacific employee who Railroad, was likewise while was Wood hospitalized treatment for his receiving was witness for injuries, Webb respondent. testified that he and daily visited Wood while were in that while on the train hospital; from St. Louis Rock they discussed in- Little Wood’s jury that then Webb told that Wood respondent as his acting attorney. Webb also testified that wrote Wood himto that the stating had tried the respondent Hawkins case at Rock, and that Little Wood had called respondent at his hotel. Mrs. Wood was called as a rebuttal witness and denied the substance of much of testimony. Webb’s

Webb’s testimony was corroborated a by statement ob- tained from Wood by respondent’s witnesses, attorneys Graham and who testified McElligott, that stated Wood that he met Willie an Webb, injured while fellow-employee they were that hospitalized; told him Webb that respondent was his attorney; that he took from Webb respondent’s that when he returned to his home address;

name North Rock the there reported Little paper that he called case; Hawkins trying (Wood) at his hotel and asked touch get with him before These fur- attorneys Rock. leaving Little ther testified that refused state- Wood written sign it ment because he feared some further might jeopardize claims had railroad. against offered a letter also' written to Respondent Wood after had first Taussig, testified. From this letter Wood be it could without implied had, authority, Ericksen Wood that which promised pass hospital privileges, had been withdrawn railroad when he filed suit, be restored if he would testified against It respondent. “I am certain you must have stated, misunderstood when he told would you say you you get your rights back. had Mr. no so to do.” authority Ericksen Taussig, to the duces tecum issued for response subpoena Wood’s to letter that it him, stated and lost such letter was never produced. Bicic

Francis J. Francis an Rail- Bick, of & employee E. E. J. J. died in an accident in road, November, widow, His resided who Illinois, testified that after Joliet, shortly the death of her Curtin at her husband, Howard called and said he had home that found out about case by from that he said Washington; reports respondent repre- Dana sented of that he Mayhew called Joliet; May- Mrs. requested hew and Bick to talk by telephone her; Mrs. with that in this conversation, and said Mayhew Mrs. with the services. further testified pleased respondent’s She that said the Curtin Clark respondent represented Gable Gable sued when for the death of Carole and Lombard that that she should got $75,000; expect case; to $27,000 $65,000 from this that Curtin her copies showed aup portfolio photostatic opened a corroborated settlements, etc. She was checks, large testified she further and brother. sister-in-law She her to who introduced went office Curtin, me not Heirich, “Mr. told you by saying, to respondent come in the Bick and here it is.” case, to without a former client sales Riley, called

Respondent R. J. for National who testified manager Co. Cartage Joliet, decedent; he attended the wake and funeral for the he that was a friend of the Bick that he talked with family; deceased, them that at the the father of the request of called and asked him see the relatives the decedent. rebuttal No offered to refute testimony was this statement. it However, is never Curtin significant referred Riley as his contact in this rather, but case, cited as the source of knowl- Washington reports fatal edge concerning injury. notes that no majority rebuttal testimony was to refute

offered R. and has Riley J. rule that under such circumstances applied a presump- tion arises against party failing produce contradictory testimony. rule Such here the same extent applicable as under a like factual situation hereinafter mentioned.

The undenied Bick is testimony Mrs. that after she had obtained an offer of settlement from the railroad in sum of $20,000, Curtin her a offered to written give guarantee $25,000 connection with the case and later did her with a letter present signed respondent, whereby that out respondent agreed of the money recovered from the railroad, Mrs. Bick would receive not less than $25,000 to net herself as administratix before fees attorney would be deducted and that she would receive three fourths of the total recovery. exhibit (Complainant’s In the 49.) interim, Mrs. Bick had been offered $30,000 by the railroad and she so told Curtin who crossed out the $25,000 figure and wrote and $30,000 wrote this alongside figure, “O.K. 398 dated March This letter was

Howard Curtin.” guarantee J. dated and and the retainer contract was 19, 1949, signed 24, March

Eugene H. Eelter in- Ohio1, lived at Norwalk, who Eelter, Eugene Nickel Plate Railroad while jured employed he returned After and was taken to a Cleveland. hospital him. called to his Oliver Zollicoffer home, upon parents’ him Eelter testified that Zollicoffer showed photostatic to1cases of checks, pertaining copies paper clippings,etc., that had and was Zollicoffer which respondent handling; Felter’s case was worth about $30,000; said thought make him a and that would give guarantee respondent settled; until the case that Zolli- advances monthly that he Eelter called December 1947; urged coffer again 7, and be exam- to' with to see respondent go Chicago' doctors; that Eelter went to ined respondent’s Chicago Zollicoffer; that took Eelter to Zollicoffer respond- there exam- office from Turner’s office for ent’s Dr. office; returned that ; ination thereupon respondent’s talked with Dr. Turner telephone Eelter that his case was worth from $30,000 then told a letter wrote and addressed Respondent signed $35,000. Eelter December to1 dated 1947, providing H. Eugene net retainer a net a one-third for guaranteed $5000. also executed and delivered to On occasion respondent a check as a advance Eelter monthly Eelter signed $50 retainer contract with testified that Eelter respondent. him that if he cases any also told could get would the same he, get percentage (Eelter) as men. refute this Michael testimony,

To respondent produced Gilmore of who testified that Ohio, Youngstown, James he met Heirich in the summer of at Youngstown; while en route to Gilmore Chicago, stopped named met a man Ohio, at Norwalk, station gas that Club; the local Eelter who was manager Elks Club Gilmore how he had built up Eelter told Elks hurt with slot that he had a son while machines; got who that the railroad did not seem railroad; working if asked he knew settle; to want to that Eelter Gilmore him case; for that kind of a that Gilmore told good lawyer he that had been to a from who lawyer introduced Chicago1 that his name terrific verdicts from railroads and first got was Bruneau that name; but that he had last forgotten Gilmore told Eelter that he did not know for sure whether he could him; locate this but he would to find try man, that when arrived in he searched Gilmore Chicago, through the classified section of the and the directory only telephone with the first name Bruneau he lawyer could find was whom he called at his office and respondent, found to be his former that he went to acquaintance; thereupon Heirich’s office and told him touch Eelter to1 with get at Norwalk, Ohio; that was in the only at that office time; Gilmore never saw Eelter again and never saw until requested testify respondent again in this proceeding.

The somewhat unusual of the ubiquitous as well as the Gilmore, was denied alleged meeting, senior Eelter. A. Gudlrjan

Harold The facts Harold injury to the A. Guder- pertaining and to the visits jan of the respondent, hospital, him and see secure his retain to a contract to signature the services of De as attor- McDonald, Parcq Davis, are set forth in- in the and are neys, majority opinion corporated reference.

Walter Dew, and service station presently garage testified for owner, the time respondent stating during he was a question and was brakeman on Ee, Santa of the Brotherhood of secretary-treasurer Lodge 285 that it as such officer Trainmen; duty Railroad office at injury Cleveland of the notify general member of the that he did so that office any notify lodge; injury of brother talked Guderjan; H. A. and she Guderjan by Mrs. asked telephone have office call attorney someone from the of the regional that he and at Minne- her; Parcq on called McDonald De and him that would they told have apolis they respondent call on that called asked Dew Guderjan; and respondent meet him at to’ the Custer Hotel in at P.M. Galesburg 3:3o aon date in the that early given October, 1945; part did time not at the hotel respondent appear appointed later and learned that had Dew train arrived one one late; and half hours that Dew was approximately to for work before the train arrived; and compelled report that went alone to see Guderjan. respondent hospital introduced in also evidence as exhibit Respondent 27, letter from the of the Cleveland office brotherhood ad- dressed date Dew, bearing which 28, 1945, September of Dew’s in- acknowledged Guderjan receipt report jury and which it stated —“and trust has been for possible you to advise Brother of the services that Guderjan are him available to Aid through Legal Department the Brotherhood.”

Mrs. Guderjan, denied ever rebuttal, any con- having with versation Dew. K. Dbans

Jambs Deans, lived who at Tilden, testified Illinois, that James K. son, was killed in an Deans, accident airplane James in November, while on his way home from the South that the Pacific; contacted him at his respondent home in January and stated that was connected with McDonald and De Parcq who were reputable lawyers who like would to-have his that case; respondent showed for other him a had claims they lot of where gotten papers Deans told had that injured; who been killed or people that he had read a lot about “ambulance chasing” respondent him and that assured that were lawyers respondent after but who went lawyers class, rather, railroads, airlines, respondent big corporations; it told Deans that Deans would not cost anything; a retainer contract for signed thereupon respondent administration; letters of signed papers procuring the costs in therewith. Two connection paid sisters of that the K. Deans also testified James contacted them their father and stated that prior seeing he wanted to them from the airlines and help get money asked them talk it over their father. further They testified that none of them had ever met or heard of re- McDonald or De spondent, to that Parcq time. prior To refute this testimony, called as a witness on his an behalf, William official of the Lyons, Progressive Mine Workers and a member House of Representa- tives from the District of Senatorial Lyons Illinois. 38th testified that he knew Deans and met him in the James month of December, 1944, while a attending meeting Union the Hall; that Deans told him of his son’s James death and asked him if he a lawyer knew who be might in field; that that good Lyons told of the respondent and later called the and told him respondent to see Deans. in Deans, rebuttal, testified that he never met

James William at the local Lyons Union Hall in December of that he never had a 1944; conversation with him concern- death; son’s that he never ing asked him to recommend a or be of lawyer assistance in that and that respect; never met until Lyons after the settlement. is' conflict in the

There testimony as to the con- original tact between and his clients. respondent However, much competent testimony the and direct concerning solicitation solicitors, and by respondent, directly through cases

oí testimony Direct solicitors respondent’s uncontradicted. division of fees in were a stands unrefuted the by paid testimony for dis- record, by respondent’s witnesses, except in intended to affect the nature, credibility paraging In each either witnesses. the case, complainant’s respondent or one of his solicitors made one or more calls the upon client retainer contracts question obtain for respond- other ent, Davis and De or McDonald, Parcq, named asso- ciates instances the ; most solicitor took the personally client to without to the said client for the Chicago expense and purpose seeing respondent receiving physical examination cost; doctors without all either cases of his one solicitors respondent exhibited and of checks and newspaper clippings photostatic copies settlement verdicts obtained papers indicating large either or-his associates; former respondent connec- tion with cases of Francis Bick, deceased, Eugene J. Felter, guarantee was delivered to agreement Ruth Bick McNichols, widow of said personal representative decedent and said Felter, bearing signature re- In the Teeth an Mauldin oral spondent. case, guarantee was made if or settlement judgment was not over Mauldin would receive all of $10,000, it.

There is further in the record, some it as to other conflicting, solicitations by or his I deem further reference to such agents. testimony need- lessly repetitive. reference, however, case, Wood and others to which have referred, I intro- duced testimony of Graham attorneys and McElligott. men These were Chicago lawyers of good standing friends and were associates of the who respondent, had received certain business handling matters him. The respondent, upon learning Ericlcsen his former interviewing clients and was statements taking from them, retained thereupon Graham and McElligott and these him. a similar service for Respondent perform of the witnesses called at the homes of several attorneys and took pencil them at length this questioned proceeding, A example pro- notes on interrogation. typical accord- occasion, in the case. On this occurred cedure Wood made the to the of these Wood testimony attorneys, ing heretofore related in that case. statements me to would cause record contains which nothing believe that were unfair their lawyers investigation these or untruthful relative to this transaction. testimony in their Their must with the other testimony be considered along evidence in this case. contends before

Respondent proceedings commissioners were vitiated because certain com- wholly either their firms missioners, law personally, through one or more of the railroads associated in the represented Railroad Research Claims which financed Bureau, costly now before us. estab- proceedings Undisputed lished one or more commissioners did such represent railroads. As the majority, I also-believe that respond- ent was entitled to have heard charges against and considered by commissioners who were dis- completely interested in the subject matter and the involved parties in this If proceeding. any commissioner was interested in the outcome of this virtue of such proceeding representa- then it would tion, have been for him to have appropriate disqualified himself. the instant

However, were filed in form charges regular fifteen-member Personal Practice Injury Committee of the Bar Chicago Association, they were heard by the commissioners of this court from the appointed griev- ance committee and the board of managers Chicago Bar Association. There were eight commissioners who heard the case, and in addition, forty others heard respond- ent’s argument objections to the commissioners’ report and acted to overrule the objections and approve report. 404 Court commissioners to Rule

Supreme empowers 59 inquire and take receive, into, concerning complaints proof of this bar. Rev. attorneys (Ill. Stat. against 1953, chap. act in an However, only advisory 110, par. 259.59.) as the of this court for of gather capacity, agents purpose and I.L.P., Attorneys and evidence. Coun (4 ing reporting Their are ad sec. recommendations selors, 195.) purely and court as a court of initial hear this is visory, regarded re McCallum, In Ill. ing. 391 claim has been made that No preju- diced nor does he rejection evidence, of competent contend of his evidence was transmitted any to court. this That their essen- commissioners performed tial duties in able an manner is therefore not disputed.

Of is conceivable that a course, it of this proceeding be vitiated that it type was conducted in might proof such a manner as to fair for the treatment prevent respond- ent. But this is such manifestly not a case. it Here, clear that the commissioners their and of time gave freely ability; remarkable restraint in a they exercised pro- both which counsel acted with emotion ceeding vigor; and that they afforded the the fullest oppor- to defend the tunity charges lodged him, against scrupu- lously this court the entire preserved passed record of the case, carefully analyzed evidence, and submitted reasoned conclusions. Significantly, respond- ent’s former counsel, who withdrew from the case after witnesses had been eighteen examined and i860 pages had been made a statement to taken, the commis- sioners which he thanked them “for their fairness and of the manner of treatment (of as counsel for him) defendant.” In all view of it is this, difficult to maintain judicial calm when the respondent recklessly accuses our commissioners of having “prostituted themselves” and with been an having parties “unconscionable conspiracy.” These served distinguished attorneys and with ably honor.

405 their commendation deserving public are They the concurring from excerpts following Court. Supreme Rerat, re Knutson in case opinion Justice apply N.W.2d 273, 305, pertinently Minn. page of this “In an investigation conducting this proceeding: * * *. as an arm of court the committee acts kind, fair treatment In so is entitled to committee doing, * * * cannot read this record with a decent I respect. more out to the conclusion that had there been coming devotion to the fairly duty upon respondent resting the committee himself of the assisting clearing charges less effort brought against spent seeking to the an in committee motive commenc impute improper the the outcome would ing conducting investigation, be more to all If the satisfactory concerned. standards of are to be it is essential that legal profession preserved, of this kind be no charges matter from what investigated, source the information comes.” has likewise made a caustic

Respondent vigorous attack the Railroad Claims its upon Research Bureau, paid and its counsel investigator Taussig, Edicksen paid has denounced the evidence as complainant’s unworthy It belief. is true Railroad Claims Research Bureau furnished information upon which the charges against respondent and aided in based, substantially the prose But cution. regardless of the source of the it is evidence, our duty to decide the case its For “If it merits. even were true that would not charges have been made except personal it would neither hostility, relieve the court from the duty of nor the investigating charges from respondent disbarment if were found to be true.” ex People rel. Bar Chicago Assn. McCallum, v. Ill. 578, 341 598; People Holt, v. Ill. 107, 109. While some the foregoing as to testimony solicitation is not as clear as I might desire, and much of the testimony is in direct conflict, did respondent not take the stand of the deny any com- positive testimony eighteen witnesses who testified to facts and statements plainant’s made in solicitation and respondent’s presence evidencing division of fees by Nor were any respondent. alleged runners or called to refute the investigators direct of solicitation and division of charges fees. The which the in presumption heretofore invoked con- majority with the nection failure to introduce complainant by one more testimony members of the Biclc family rebuttal of the of R. testimony Riley, must, fairness, J. now be to the and his runners applied alleged and solicitors; and the inference must be drawn that their would be unfavorable respondent. 32 page C.J.S.

Counsel for the failure attempts justify so because “of the testify involved this indignities railroad inspired to' proceeding,” protest “improper These procedure.” do not true. protests ring Regardless of any alleged motivation or malice on behalf improper of either the commissioners or I find no1indication counsel, in the entire record of abuse or inflicted personal indignities or his upon respondent counsel. acrimony Respondent’s charges would if he against better appear grace had taken the stand to-brand them and I false, cannot con- done his failure to in his testify own defense. in the bar is a

Membership burdened with privilege conditions re (In Rouss, 116 and in N.E. view of 782,) the serious nature of the charges his against him, posi tion as an officer of this court, choice of silence was to him. re open (In District Sanitary Attorneys, 351 see 206; Ill. also In re Anastaplo, Ill.2d The rule 271.) 3 in disbarment applicable was well stated in the proceedings case of In re Wellcome, Mont. 450, Pac. 23 59 445 “If the page accused is not would guilty, nothing 452: have been easier than for him to all deny knowledge laid at his charges door. His failed having to testify

407 deny do so, he should in his when defense, own but justifies, not only and Clark, statements Whiteside it, evidence before court, this upon irresistibly impels he is that See guilty.” the conclusion which is credible to P.2d 215, Bar Cal. California, also Fish v. State 4 214 Fenn, In re Mo. 128 S.W.2d 937; 657. in the the evidence am of the that all of

I opinion testify, the failure of respondent record, coupled in the that leads the conclusion engaged investigators solicitation of directly, paid cases, through I am conclusion, clients. In to this through coming not unmindful of the witnesses many that complainant’s re- had some real or fancied developed against grievance and that was guilty spondent, investigator Ericksen However, of over-zealousness in the witnesses. obtaining it must suffice this con- record before court say tains the clear and evidence believable, reliable, convincing that is of this character required to warrant proceedings action. disciplinary

In justice to I must respondent, out that point record discloses that he has his clients represented properly and has their interests. find him protected I of no guilty moral in that turpitude Indeed, the regard. record affirma shows tively is an able who lawyer has achieved success in the field Federal involving Em ployers Liability Act He cases. has gained good reputa tion for his ability, honesty, members integrity among bench and as well as bar, asso among personal ciates, the Director of including the Railroad Re Claims search Bureau and other railroad claims men. fact, Such does not however, overcome the evidence of solici positive tation in this case. In Harris, re Ill.

The record here clearly substantiates the of the findings majority charges prepared George Ericksen and the prosecution conducted by attorney both Taussig, paid employees Railroad Bureau; Claims Research

408 that this was the solici- organized group general tors of four or five that it later railroads; was expanded at to include least 21 that it railroads; handled funds and retained an and to facts sur- investigator attorney probe solicitations and evidence to bar associa- rounding present tions; that the worked on a of about investigator budget a that the $20,000 year; was George employed Ericksen bureau in and was instructed to for work to the 1949, report committee of the injury Bar Asso- personal practice Chicago that ; ciation the bureau met with the then president bar and its amicus curiae here, general counsel, an offer was made the and to Bar Association give Chicago to money chasers”; “ambulance this offer prosecute refused, was but the alternative that the bureau proposal and to work with the committee Ericksen employ Taussig Kenneth director of the Railroad Carney, A. adopted. Claims Research testified that bureau Bureau, meetings were held twice each at time railroad investi- year which would affidavits relative solicitation gators present and their lawyers the results of report probes methods of and claims by lawyers rep- obtaining handling or deceased injured railroad resenting employees; the railroads adopted practice settling claimants without even when lawyers recognition knew the claimant lawyer representing the time. In view of these I am facts, compelled conclusion that this stem did not originally proceeding from desire for an unethical impartial investigation designed solely practices, protect public It may profession. well be that the hostile attitude railroads toward who their attorneys employees represented attendant activities tended adjusters of claim the climate in com- which solicitation of the develop type of in this could There is sub- plained thrive. proceeding stantial evidence in the undenied record, by investigator Ericksen, that he resorted to ruse and artifice in approach- He not clients of respondent. present both past ing be witnesses in former clients to out only sought on the latter to called but also gratuitously proceeding, because would them seek counsel respondent to other advise There is direct evidence that be disbarred. Ericksen soon the to evidence against rep obtain attempted himself to relative killed in an be a of person resenting uncontradicted in the There is evidence ample accident. to convince this court that Ericksen, record acting of the Bar was far Association, credentials more Chicago interested than in discrediting disbarring respondent the facts. these facts neither Howei^er, relieve determining the court of the of the duty of investigating solici charges of tation, nor action if proper disciplinary are taking to be true. ex People found rel. Bar Association v. Chicago Ill. McCallum, People Holt, v. Ill. 598; 341 279 107, 109.

There is no but that question the solicita type general tion shown in this has a record, tendency to strong lessen the sense of professional to clients obligation and defeat the honorable of the purposes profession. ethical and social inherent in the dangers necessitates its practice con demnation this court. conduct has Such been con long contrary sidered the ethics of the even profession, though does it not necessarily involve fraud or deceit. stated in We Veach, re 1 Ill.2d at page “Many of the prac 272: tices by the canons prohibited of ethics do not inherently involve fraud or deceit, but are nevertheless reprehensible. Instances of solicitation will rarely, they sometimes though involve either the may, element of fraud or deceit. Lack of such element does not render the act less any repre nor does hensive, it serve to protect good reputation the bar.”

After of the adoption majority opinion eighteen railroads moved this court to reopen record in this case for the purpose permitting movants an opportunity made serious, as characterized defend the charges, railroads general, court’s opinion against that the alternative, in the movants in particular; as additional leave to file brief the movants

court permit for rehearing. Sug- curiae in amicus support petition and additional were filed in of this motion gestions support and additional evidence in the nature new against matters to leave of court. were filed pursuant State, Bar members Thereafter, reputable due administra- interested this court as officers of this court’s for leave to justice, bring tion of moved demon- evidence which allegedly attention discovered newly chasers systematically employed that the strated basis, for him solicit business fee-splitting hear- a course of evasion during prior directed subpoena such facts. in this cause the disclosure of to prevent ings the sworn statement of This motion was accompanied some solicited, C. Brown that he had respondent, O. letters and the cases here sworn state- of considered his runners evade that the had directed ments the service of subpoenas. herein has likewise been filed by George

Motion Erick- for leave attention new evidence sen to the court’s bring conduct by on the matter of improper bearing and to excise from the evidence in this case, presenting certain statements or to him, court’s opinion relating the record. reopen these de all motions were objections,

On of In re nied even case by majority, Donaghy, though Ill. offered for a re-reference of 621, authority ample 393 case to commissioners this court to the hear reopen for the additional evidence and purpose taking ing Under making supplemental report. allegations the record before us is motions, these incomplete, have been taken further should to the pertinent defenses involved. charges particular believe record, I even on the However, present censure save reproach, without discharge inadequate. testify, the stand and for his failure to take fore- concur J., C.J., HershEy, SchaEEER, going dissenting opinion.

(No. 33972, Cons . People Defendant Illinois, Er State Kalpak vs. et Plaintiffs in al., Error.

ror, James Opinion January Rehearing 19, denied March filed 195 7

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Heirich

Court Name: Illinois Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 15, 1956

Citation: 140 N.E.2d 825

Docket Number: 33455

Court Abbreviation: Ill.