*1 19,891. No. John E. Bell. Colorado State (372 [2d] 436) 11, 1962.
Decided June Attorney Mr. Frank General, Mr. Dunbar, Duke W. C. Deputy, Mr. William E. McClearn, Hickey, People. Bar, for the Colorado Respondent. for Ginsberg, Charles En Banc. delivered McWilliams Justice
Court. against original proceeding in disbarment an This as the re- referred to Bell, hereinafter John E. spondent. who is By complaint the Grievance Committee filed with admitted it was alleged to the Bar of Colorado September Court on by *2 is, a been, and that since this date has and now he of the generally member Bar this Court. was It averred that acts con- the committed “has trary honesty, justice with em- More he morality.” charged specifically to own the sum of bezzling converting his use $16,725.00 lawfully in his as administrator possession with the will annexed the M. estate of one Ladnor deceased, Moore, whose last will testament had been admitted to duly probate in the of Chey- County Court Nebraska, enne on County, com- January 29, 1957. The plaint that citation prayed issue requiring to answer the allegations of the complaint and for such further proceedings action as the cir- cumstances the demand. might
Citation issued and respondent answered, admitting to his admission the Colorado Bar in 1948 and ap- his as pointment administrator M. estate of Ladnor Moore, but denying any wrongdoing on his part. He spe- denied to cifically converting his own use funds of any the Moore estate. On the day the matter was set for hearing before the Grievance Committee, his withdrew answer and admitted all of the allegations in complaint, and additionally ad- stipulated to the mission certain documents. Respondent then testified circumstances as surrounding acts complained of, no hopeful doubt that such would prove to be of a mitigating nature.
It at hearing developed that respondent at the age was permanently of three and severely crippled by polio this that he but subsequently overcame effects handicap, eventually graduated from law school admitted to the and was- Colorado Bar. his admis- Since sion respondent practiced in the Fort Morgan-Brush area, married and the father of four minor children. In respondent under consideration actions here
testified that had he and Ladnor M. Moore personal engaged been close friends and as such had in joint freely several business He ventures. admitted that he had indeed converted to his own use funds of the Moore estate in the amount $16,725.00, asserted regarded that he such to be of a more nature “loan,” than an act of embezzlement. conversions place period years took over a of several ill- gotten gains criminality from these acts of were used to pay respondent’s living expenses, remodeling Respondent expressed home, and the like. his intention complete regard to make restitution and in he said already repaid had some $13,000to the Moore estate. report
The Grievance Committee in its findings allegations made of fact to the effect that the *3 complaint respondent were true, concluded that gross professional guilty “is of misconduct in his serv- ices as administrator with will annexed of the of estate contrary Ladnor M. Moore, deceased, to the honesty, justice morality of in the con- version to his own use of the sum $16,725.00 of in cash of assets said estate” and recommended that he be dis- barred. proceeding
In a perhaps this nature it is trite, true, nevertheless to observe that action given to be taken in a analysis case must final de pend upon particular facts and circumstances of that prior comparable case, and where a case exists it should guidance be degree resorted to for in order that some uniformity may approximated. People be See ex rel. Dunbar (2d) Weinstein, v. 135 541, Colo. 312 P. 1018and People (2d) ex Heald, v. 123 390, rel. Colo. 229 665. respondent
In the instant confessed to the commission of a succession of embezzlements. His excuse wholly therefor or is devoid of merit. hasHe People made substantial restitution, but as was said in (2d) Buckles, ex rel. v. 140 261, Colo. 343 P. 1046 “re- aspects payment away fraudulent does not do with disability Respondent’s both of conversions.” mis- for his substantial, real and but is an excuse not duty Bar and deeds. We be remiss in our would public simply censure if we were permit practice law in this in his him to continue that there are some state. On the other hand we believe mitigating circum- that under all the circumstances and outright pen- a be severe stances alty. disbarment would too things say considered, it is the it to that Suffice all hereby is, be, order this Court that indefinitely practice suspended law in this from the State. Justice Hall dissents. dissenting: Justice Hall
I dissent.
I am of that court should adhere to its (2d) pronouncements Sarvas, 7, in In re 342 P. Colo. (2d) Kistler, 62, 1022, 144 Colo. 354 P. it held that wherein was one who embezzles client’s practice money forfeits his license law. purpose disciplinary proceedings pun-
The is not to offending lawyer, protect public ish but rather to from one who demonstrated unworthiness of the part parcel trust and confidence all should be a attorney relationships. and client practice should be disbarred from the law in Colorado.