In re Rule on Smith

Citations

• 179 Pa. 14
• 36 A. 134
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 595

Syllabus

<p>Attorney at law — Disbarment—Jurisdiction—Jury trial.</p> <p>The court of common pleas has jurisdiction to disbar an attorney at law when he becomes unworthy, without calling upon a jury to pass upon his misconduct.</p> <p>In proceedings to disbar an attorney the testimony showed that during the progress of certain litigation in which he was interested as counsel, he had repeatedly made charges against four judges who had been connected with the litigation, to the effect that they were guilty of misconduct and crimes which if proved would subject them to impeachment and removal from office. It was conclusively shown that the charges were unfounded. He subsequently wrote letters to a judge while a rule was pending and undecided, charging that the judge had made a decision in the case, which he had withdrawn in the attorney’s absence, at the request of the opposing counsel. All three of the judges of the court found that the letters were written with a view to influence the decision, and that they were intended to reflect upon the judicial integrity of the court. The evidence showed that the offending attorney was just past middle life, and that prior to the litigation in question had been of reputable character and assiduous in the practice of his profession, and that he is dependent for his support upon his professional income. The lower court entered a decree of disbarment. Held, that the punishment was too heavy, and the decree should be modified so as to permit him to be reinstated, at the end of two years from the date of disbarment, if in the meantime nothing further should appear against his private and professional character.</p>