17 Colo. 544 | Colo. | 1892
Lead Opinion
The petition charges Granville Pendleton, who is. a duly licensed attorney at law in this state, with having collected in his official capacity as such attorney, and wrongfully appropriated, a certain sum of money. The Ool-.
The success or failure of the proceeding for disbarment rests largely upon the charge of forgery. Touching this specific charge and the general issue of -payment, witnesses were produced and examined in open court.
The principal object of disbarment proceedings is to purify the legal profession. But the judgment of disbarment may entail disastrous consequences upon the individual himself. We think such a judgment should only be pronounced upon clear and convincing proofs. This view is pre-eminently appropriate where, as in the present case, the judgment is based upon a charge and tried upon an issue cognizable under the criminal code. After careful consideration of the evidence we cannot say that the charge of forgery in connection with the receipt, or the general allegation of a wrongful appropriation of money, is thus established. This being true, the prosecution fails and the proceeding against respondent must be dismissed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting as to the findings of fact.
I agree with my associates as to the kind and quantum of evidence requisite to warrant a judgmemt of disbarment where, as in a case of this kind, the charge against the respondent involves a distinct and specific criminal offense.
In this proceeding the members of the court have had to
Proceeding dismissed.