*1 17,956. No. rel. Duke W. People ex Colorado, the State Attorney v. Sam Weinstein. Dunbar, General 1018) (312 [2d] P. July 1, 1957. Decided Attorney General, Mr. Frank Duke W. Mr. Dunbar, Deputy, E. for relator. Hickey, respondent. Mr. S. Percy Morris, En Banc. opinion delivered the of the Court. Frantz
Mr. Justice Weinstein, refer whom Respondent, against by “Complaint Original Proceedings informed Attorney for Disbarment” filed court in this Gen- eral of the State Colorado. alleged complaint pertinent facts in the are: That
The respondent at all mentioned therein was an at- times torney duly Supreme law, at licensed as such *2 Colorado; that an action Court of was filed damages and others to recover treble Weinstein a claim for interest in sum of al- $950.61, on excess the legedly by collected defendants in connection with a loan plaintiffs by made them the that action; that de- alleging filed an facts, fendants answer therein which if plaintiff; established defeat claim would the that upon trial of said action Weinstein became witness length; during and testified at that his he gave question actually evidence that the loan in was by made one Bert Harris for whom Weinstein acted as attorney; (Weinstein) that he had issued the check on Harris to the order behalf of of the borrowers and that money Harris had advanced the in the form aof check deposited by which was Weinstein his own account. day Weinstein further testified that on the same the loan was made Harris sold the note Weinstein’s.father by $1,900.00 which delivered in cash was the latter presence Weinstein, in the and that Harris received the cash and endorsed the that note; in truth there was person no such as Bert Harris and that the loan was by respondent agent made for his father; that his father never at time a holder in due course for question, actually person the value of note in but was charges demanded and received who the excess of in- respondent all terest, of which well knew because he handled the entire transaction and received fees in con- nection therewith. n here, Weinstein has filed an answer which reads in part pertinent as follows: respondent confessing and,
“Comes now the the truth charges against him which contained in the Complaint upon mercy herein, throws himself indulgence respect asks the Court and of the Court in discipline administered it to him.
5.43 that, during “And submits to the Court respondent pur- law practicing that he has been eighteen years had Court, suant he to his admission to the bar by an as an borne unblemished reputation that he has devoted amounts of time work- large asks and charitable activities and he ing communal that he an to submit evidence be given opportunity in this support paragraph.” of the statements contained A Referee was to conduct appointed hearing A report to the court. was held findings hearing witnesses, the Referee at called ten which Weinstein all of whom testified that had theretofore borne It good reputation. was established he had been fraternal, active in various religious and benevolent or- He admitted that he had ganizations. freely committed him perjury charged against in the complaint. His for the only justification false testimony given in the *3 action mentioned was:
“I can’t give any explanation other than that fact; of course, of situation, this family of attempting to protect * * * father in this my particular matter. * ** “I felt that if he a were holder in due course of notes, that these he in turn would not be liable for treble damages.” has
Weinstein been practicing lawyer for eighteen The for years. parties the who filed the action him and his against co-defendants in which the perjured given, states for himself and his clients with reference to these in proceedings disbarment:
“I think it not inappropriate to express the feelings that the Barnabes and share with reference to dis- measures which ciplinary be may taken against him. believe that
“We in good conscience and all humility we should in join your appeal to the Justices of the Supreme Court for the extension to Sam Weinstein of the utmost of degree leniency which they, in the exer- cise of their discretion, feel can be justified under all the circumstances of the case.
544 parents, all too aware are Barnabe, as Mrs. “Mr. and necessarily visited sufferings of the father the
that attorney is ex- of an upon that children, disbarment the may discipline be tremely and that whatever severe, only by suffered not Mr. to Weinstein accorded five children.” his wife and him, but also which has filed briefs in Weinstein for Counsel disciplinary pleads eloquently short of dis for action he ' given careful consideration the have We barment. fully argument realize counsel. We and record proceeding every should be considered disbarment that move the facts and circumstances treated as court, 662, v. State, 99 Fla. Gould conscience yet, comparable 699; there is a 309, 69 A.L.R. where So. guidance for in order case, it should be resorted to uniformity in the administration be achieved nearly possible. precedent suspension, We have for as ruling for this which should be touchstone case. (2d) 390, case in Colo. 665, refer 229 P. We involving United District a conviction States Court “making, separate offenses Colorado two or causing governmental lending agency made, conspiring statements, also of to do the false same.” of disbarment seems The recommendation too all harsh in the circumstances. As has view been proceedings, disbarment cast done other we should nearly years the scales nineteen honorable service in together weight profession, with commendable participation civic works, and charitable 394, violation of the law. 88 his serious Colo. 297 Pac. 998.
Viewing beam of the scales under these circum- adjudge stances, be, and he practice hereby suspended is, from the of law in this period years, at for a conclusion state two showing any which, in the absence of further dishon- part, conduct on his reinstatement orable will auto- matically ensue.
Mr. Justice Holland Justice Hall and Mr. dissent- ing.
Mr. Justice Holland dissenting. abiding feeling penalty two-year
With an that the suspension penalty is severe, too and that a milder would amply satisfy justice purposes sought the ends of and the accomplished, respectfully dissent from the result opinion. majority announced in the again necessary It is not to relate the circumstances fully majority opinion, which are set out in the and re- spondent charges the truth confessed of the and has placed mercy respect himself at the of the court with discipline worthy to be administered. This fact is “ * * * joy presence much consideration. there is in the angels repenteth.” of the of God over one sinner that Luke history 15:10. We are not confronted with a petty transgressions, but on hand, the other we must considering make note that we are what do in the case straight path with one deviation from the during and narrow years nineteen of honorable without respondent’s reputation, blemish on and the violation complained light here of must be considered in respondent’s history of devotion to communal and char- spirit. activities, which reveals a itable commendable we must not overlook Also, the filial devotion and re- spect parents seemingly part elders, of the place It traditions of his race. is not idle nor out of observe the laudable fact that statistics will show that percentage people brought is a smaller there before Jewish the bars of for violations of our civil and moral laws than other race. apparent perjured
It is that the motive for testi- mony protection possible was for of his father damages. claim for treble If this true, it follows that falsify purpose gain he did not for the of financial trustworthy himself. No more witnesses could have *5 reputation character as his to unblemished testified lawyers who testified and and businessmen than ten expressions as to unstinting in their laudable who were respondent’s This and character. life great weight impressive given most as it re- and be history only long of honorable conduct with a veals present exception. my dissenting opinion associates, of one
In things among un- it is said other governing Ethics the Canon of the conduct mindful “of lawyer being lawyers.” yet a who, to I have know following part violate the advocate, zealous did not improper lawyer for a to assert Canon of Ethics: “It is personal argument his client’s belief innocence his Regardless this, his cause.” of all or in the respondent admittedly his violated oath a witness decalogue formulated ancestral and also the bearing removed, in false witness. Fortu- fathers, far respondent, many nately us, as well as there for forty; only however, instead of re- ten commandments seeking spondent transgression, personal by his was not appears great gain, the case in or benefit disciplinary majority precedent cases, a and if we followed of our have, name would be deleted which we reports. printed a This was done in much from our reprimand graver we offense administered. When giving respondent’s for the false testi- reasons consider purposes by mony, all a much less serve would majority penalty that announced in the severe than pardon. opinion. to rule, While not the To understand inhumanity ámong judges man obtains as well man’s people. as other probation wisely Legislature provided has for
Our degree except and the murder, first and second felonies, person exception cases where a has twice been further prior felony or state elsewhere convicted application is' made. A sus- at hand in which case period years is a pension of two punishment at all and is not innocent victims harsh comparable reprimands administered that have been flagrant If it be con- violations. this Court in more *6 penalty it deterrent, as a that the serves sidered may very bar who be members of the not reach the few premise they culprits go that at and on the false heart great enough caught. The mass of are smart to not be carry as ethics as the bar their code of well members of their honor and loyalty heart, their their and oaths, integrity principles and without the of honor conform to discipline by this There lesson of Court. so-called transgressor crucify as a lesson for is one no reason to majority overwhelming the bar of the members of the such a lesson is needed do not need the lesson. If who general a deterrent, a then there had better be over- hauling profession. of the moral standards of the An in- spection country disciplinary of the across the records ranges many proceedings punishment that the reveals reprimand ninety-day suspension, instances from a to a practice by high standing and such courts of has ob- processes tained for decades and without falling apart. the courts turpitude, history just a
We do not have here of moral opposite; respondent’s transgression however, is not lightly. to be treated too If this one deviation in nineteen years justice, is sufficient rock citadels then they shaky a life, character, are in condition. The and palliate history respondent flagrancy should weigh heavily delinquency and of his should in his favor penalty two-year suspension. the severe penalty crushing any attorney Such a is a blow and few doubt, ever surmount its disastrous effects. No pending proceeding grievous fact of this has been and and great anxiety respondent’s family, the cause of on respondent possesses worth, if already an ounce of then he has way. Respondent being
learned lesson the hard lawyer knowledge presumably and with full of the charged admitted, seriousness of the offense and can- my. it is belief however, violation, condone not attorney at practice as an suspension opinion from that amply days ninety period for a of Colorado the bar sufficient. dissenting. Hall
Mr. Justice majority portion of the respectfully that from dissent I suspension two-years’ provides for a opinion which practice privilege his automatic law and respondent’s period. expiration am the of said reinstatement permanently dis- opinion should be law, that his name barred attorneys, and that the licensed roll of from the stricken respondent’s district referred to the actions be County criminal City for such of Denver of the may prosecution and law warrant. as the facts *7 testimony Respondent his before and his answer that in a case in which confesses referee, admits and knowingly counsel, he as well a defendant he was falsely matter in a a material under oath to testified pur- all for court, district on trial in the cause then miscarriage justice. Having causing failed pose brought respondent this the case to court, the trial in proceedings error, and in the of error Court on writ per- containing presented his the record to this Court judgment testimony sought jured a reversal of the and urged urged as a or caused to be of the trial court perjured testimony. ground for reversal practice imposed upon Respondent’s to law license obligations grant privi- him as well to him duties and leges. court an officer of the where he was He was appear; duty judge, privileged he owed public, opponents, lastly but witnesses, — helpful honest, truthful and himself least to not presenting court, matters to the whether in his own justice might prevail. others, or in behalf behalf obligations, unmindful of his oath of of these Unmindful governing office, of the canons of ethics the conduct of lawyers, unmindful of the criminal laws which he know- ingly proceeded offended, he with deliberation and cun- ning, scheming description a callousness that defies with give to justice. false defeat order to the ends of opinion judicial my system, dependent upon In our integrity it, those selected to administer cannot practice perjury survive if the and the go subject only temporary hand, law are to hand in restraint.
Respondent perjurer ais confessed and as such a con- provides: ’53, fessed 39-10-17, felon. C.R.S. Subject “Felony disqualifies from to the con- office.— every person felony state,
stitution of the convicted of disqualified holding any shall from thenceforth be profit honor, trust, office of or under the laws of practicing state, or as an of the courts of this state.” respondent perjury,
True, has not been convicted of only but reason dictates that felons,” not “convicted but “confessed well, felons” as should be disbarred from the practice of law. precedent
I feel we should not use as herein the ex- leniency respondents treme in the shown in the two cases cited
majority opinion. prefer reasoning instead the 220, and conclusion reached in 80 Colo. Pac. 1093, where the was disbarred subornation perjury. my opinion, decision, That humble is a proper precedent, precedent if were needed. The fol- lowing language applicable of the unanimous decision is *8 in the case now before us. upon say disqualify
“We are called what will one to question That must law. be answered not standpoint standpoint individual, of the but from the duty, of the commonwealth whose courts it is our solemn n able, so far as to maintain as the citadels * * * justice, perjury justice. is the chief menace of prose- paralyze a bought which with A false oath juris- depart the bribed witnesses and material cution profes- may and continue do this If one diction. he be excluded? sion, for what offense “ * * * duty client, it lawyer’s not to his first But a profanes he serves the altar justice, so and who is to safety.” public service for leave that must referee report of the and recommendations The approved, should be disbarment of licensed from the roll stricken and his name disbarred attorneys. 17,935.
No. Perry, M. Phyllis Jr., et al. v. Jacobs Robert 1008) (313 P. [2d] July 1, 1957. Decided