In re the Disbarment of Wilson

Citations

• 79 Kan. 450
• 100 P. 75
• 1909 Kan. LEXIS 213

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Attorneys—Disbarment—Notice. The notice required to he served upon an accused by section 400 of the General Statutes of 1901 need not be a process within the meaning of sections 1 and 17 of article 3 of the constitution of Kansas.</p> <p>2. - Jointly Accused—Separate Trial. Where two attorneys at law are jointly charged of together doing acts'which, if proved, justify the disbarment of each, it is not error to refuse a separate trial, but they may be tried together and one may be convicted and one acquitted, or both be convicted or acquitted, according to the evidence.</p> <p>3. - Finding of Guilty upon One of Several Charges Sufficient. In a disbarment proceeding, where numerous specific charges are preferred and the court finds the accused guilty upon several of the charges and enters a judgment thereoh, the judgment should not be reversed if any one of the findings is sustained by the evidence. Only one penalty—disbarment— can be incurred, whether accusations be many or but one.</p> <p>4. - Inherent Power of Courts to Disbar. While the courts are not the curators of the morals of the bar and should not take cognizance of a solitary immoral act of a member thereof, not amounting to a crime and unconnected with his duties in court, still, as attorneys are officers of the court, the courts have the inherent power to disbar such as, by a persistent course of immorality or dishonesty, bring distrust and reproach upon the administration of justice.</p>