Disbarment proceedings were begun against the defendant by filing in this court a complaint with seven separate counts with specifications. The defendant answered, and the court appointed Honorable Prank A. Barton referee to take the evidence and report to the court his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The matter appears to have been very earnestly contested before the referee. A very large amount of evidence was taken by the state, and the referee has found that the first four alleged grounds for disbarment stated in the information are established by the evidence, and his conclusion is that the defendant is guilty as charged, and that he ought to be disbarred. The referee found that the three remaining charges of the information are not established by the evidence. A motion was made to confirm the report of the referee as to the first four counts and for order of disbarment thereon, and that the findings of the referee as to the fifth and sixth charges of the information be reversed, and the court find from the evidence that the defendant is guilty as therein charged. It is conceded that the seventh charge of the information is not supported by the evidence.
It was objected that the information should be dismissed, because it is presented by a private person, and
The first count of the information charges that the defendant in February, 1907, was guilty of forgery in an action pending in the district court for Dawes county, in which he was employed as attorney, and that he offered the forged document in evidence, and that, to procure the admission of the document in evidence, he falsely testified in that trial that the document as offered by him was executed in his presence by the parties by whom it purported to be executed. The record, including the evidence taken in the trial of the case referred to, was offered and received in evidence before the referee. As this 'defendant was not a party to that action, it is objected that this record and evidence was incompetent and should not have been received. This objection would have been available as to a large part of this record, at least, if it had been made at the time it was offered and had been insisted upon. On the contrary, it was stipulated between the parties that the files offered were the original files in the case referred to, “and that said files were produced by the proper authority, foundations of. proof being waived.” The defendant made several objections to the evidence, as that the charge was too stale, and that the charge was not ground for disbarment, and was barred by the statute of limitations, and was false in substance. When
It is also objected that the evidence, even if the record is considered, is not sufficient to support the finding and conclusion of the referee.
“The lawyer’s life must be'one of fidelity and stern integrity.” In re Sitton, 177 Pac. (Okla.) 555.
“In granting a license to practice law it is on the implied understanding that the party receiving it shall in all things demean himself in a proper manner, and abstain from such practices as cannot fail to bring discredit upon himself, the profession, and the courts. If a deceit is practiced by an attorney in his character as such, although not in a suit pending in the court, he may be removed from his office as attorney.” State v. Burr, 19 Neb. 593. 2 R. C. L. 1099, sec. 192; 6 C. J. 598, sec. 58.
The facts established by the uncontradicted evidence, with admissions of defendant, in this record, prove that the defendant knew, or at least as the responsible attorney in the case should have known, that the document he offered in evidence had never been agreed to by the party against whom it was offered. If defendant was not guilty of forgery himself, he sought to deceive the court by the forgery of others. One who attempts to benefit by the use of forged commercial paper is as guilty of felony as the forger himself. And so, the lawyer who knowingly uses forgery of another to impose upon a court cannot justify Or lessen his violation of duty as a member of the bar by showing that he did
Proceedings for disbarment of this defendant were heard before this court in 1908, and resulted in his suspension from practice as an attorney for the year commencing Feb. 1, 1909. State v. Fisher, 82 Neb. 361. The second count of the information that we are now considering charged that the defendant, in violation of the order of this court in the former proceedings, continued in the practice of law during the whole year in question. The order of this court was; “It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged that the defendant Alien G. Fisher be, and he is hereby, suspended from the practice of his profession of attorney and counselor at law in this and the district courts, of this state for the. period of one year; but, in order to protect the interests of his clients the suspension shall not take effect until January 1, 1909.” The defendant was employed as an attorney in litigation then pending, and he attempted with another member of the bar to conduct the litigation in the courts, not only in those cases then pending, but also in such new cases as might be offered , to defendant. It is contended that the defendant. did not at any time orally participate in the trial of cases in open court, either in the state supreme or district courts, and that the order of the court did not deprive him of the right to do any other act or thing that he was authorized to do by his membership of the bar of the state. If it should be considered that the order did not suspend all of the powers given him by his membership of the bar,.he was forbidden to “practice his profession” in the courts named. What is it to practice the legal profession in the courts ? In In re Lizotte, 32 R. I. 386, 35 L. R. A. n. s. 794, it is held; “An attorney who has been suspended from the practice of his profession is guilty of contempt of court if he retains
The defendant, here not only prepáred and filed in the district court pleadings and other papers with the name of another attorney attached, but in some instances with his own name also attached as attorney. He maintained a law office as before his suspension, which carried a sign naming him as an attorney at law. He consulted with clients continually in regard to their actions pending in this and the district court, and was present in court when their cases were tried. In some cases he attempted in open court to make suggestions in regard to one of his cases being tried, and was rebuked by the court. These things and other matters that are proved without contradiction constitute practicing “his profession as attorney and counselor at law.” To draw pleadings and prepare a case for trial in the district court is practicing his profession in that court, whether he signs his own name or the name of some other attorney. During the time he was so violating the order of the court, the court so construed that order and notified him of that fact. The evidence shows that he forwarded some papers to the clerk of this court for docketing here, and that the court, after learning the facts, instructed the clerk to inform this defendant that “a package containing records” in certain cases had
It is said that, if such conduct amounted to contempt of court, the remedy was to punish for contempt, and that disbarment cannot be coupled with prosecution for contempt. It is true that the evidence appe'ars to establish that the defendant was by that practice guilty of contempt of court, and that he might have been prosecuted for such contempt, and also that a prosecution for contempt is entirely distinct from a prosecution for disbarment, and that the two cannot be joined, at least are not usually joined, in one complaint. But the fact that a member of the bar has made himself liable to a criminal prosecution, and has not been prosecuted and convicted, is not an answer to a complaint for disbarment for the same act. Such complaint for disbarment may be made either before or after a prosecution, whether the prosecution is successful or unsuccessful. 2 R. C. L. 1101, sec. 194.
The third count alleges that the defendant was employed by one Hood to obtain a divorce, and that Edwin D. Crites, an attorney of the same county, was employed by Mrs. Hood, and that defendant conspired with certain private detectives and with enemies of Crites to
. It alleges various actions on the part of defendant and other conspirators to carry out the conspiracy. It seems
An attorney and counsellor at law is an officer of the courts, and the proper sense of the importance and honor of his high calling will prevent his connection with litigation in which such methods are practiced, and would lead him at once to prevent such attempts or withdraw from the employment. But the plans were discussed and made in the defendant’s office, and he attempts the further justification by the assertion that some parts of the scheme were discussed with his law partner, and not with himself.
“It is the duty of an attorney and counsellor: First, to maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and to judicial officers; second, to counsel or maintain no other actions, proceedings or defenses, than those which
The fourth count -charges that the defendant became offended against this complainant, and “proceeding from motives of passion, interest and hatred on his part against this complainant, instigated, and ever since has maintained, continuous litigation of one sort and another against this conplainant, before the general land office, the courts of this state and of the United States; that said litigation was malicious and without probable or any cause, was illegal and unjust, and was not consistent with truth.” It is alleged in these proceedings that defendant committed perjury and was guilty of various acts of professional misconduct, and, among other tilings, it is alleged that, in contesting a filing of complainant on government land, the defendant falsely procured his minor son to represent himself as the head of a family and pretend to adopt a younger brother, while in fact both sons were living with the defendant and were supported by him; that the defendant filed affidavits before government officers to maintain these false claims, and himself committed perjury therein. Without attempting to analyze the great mass of evidence as to perjury of defendant in these matters, or his good faith in the -many actions he,brought against complainant, it is sufficient to consider his attempt to secure this government land in the name of his minor son.
The fifth count charges that defendant and others “associated themselves together under the name of Surety Title & Trust Company, which they claimed to have incorporated;” that in fact there was no incorporation, and their main purpose and practice was to find defects in titles and obtain quitclaim deeds that would enable them to challenge the title of the owner; that pursuant to this policy they purchased fictitious claims and began litigation; that a writing was executed in the name of this company with the defendant, whereby he agreed “to perform for a period of four years, from this date, all necessary legal business of this compány, and his compensation therefor is to be 20 per cent, of the capital stock now issued;” that defendant afterwards brought an action against the company upon the contract, had the summons served upon himself as secretary, and procured judgment thereon without the knowledge of any one interested; “that said purported judgment was so procured to be entered for the purpose of enabling the said Fisher to realize on a fraudulent claim, and for the purpose of enabling him to make a purported levy thereunder on lands owned by one Fred Hoyt, in trust for the Sheridan Realty Company, a corporation of Sheridan county, Nebraska, he, the said Fisher, claiming that said lands were held in trust by said Hoyt for said alleged corporation, Surety Title & Trust' Company. * * * Upon the entry of said supposed judgment, the said Fisher caused an execution to issue out of the office of the clerk of said district court thereon, and caused the same to be levied upon the land so held in trust bj>
The sixth count is that defendant filed a large fictitious claim against the estate of a decedent, with many specifications of unprofessional and even rascally conduct of defendant in connection therewith. It is not necessary to analyze the evidence, which is voluminous, in support of these fifth and sixth counts. Even if it should be found that the evidence is not sufficient to require disbarment on either of these two counts, if considered alone, which we understand is the view of the referee, yet the nature of the charges and the evidence supporting them will require that they be considered in connection with the facts upon which the disbarment is based. If an attorney has been guilty of such misconduct as requires disbarment, and there is clear evidence of subsequent reformation, there would be no occasion for disbarment under such circumstances. Even if he had been disbarred at the time of such misconduct, clear proof of reformation might justify his reinstatement. In this case the misconduct of defendant has been practically continuous, so that each unworthy act tends to aggravate the main offenses. Each of the
Wo therefore approve and confirm the findings and conclusions of the referee, and it is ordered that the admission of the defendant, Allen Gr. Fisher, to the bar of this state is canceled and annulled, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law.
Disbarred.