![]() The evidence now before us raises a question, not so much as to the intellectual as to the moral fitness of the applicant to become a member of our bar. Held, that petitioner was not shown to be a person of good moral character, required by Pol.Code, ยง 686, as a condition precedent to admission to the bar. ![]() In proceedings subsequently instituted, after his disbarment, for his readmission to the bar, he still insisted that he had neither said nor published anything intended to discredit or disgrace the court, and that he was aware that it was the duty of every man to preach and practice respect to the court and obedience to its orders and decrees, but that he had simply attacked individuals as such. An action was then instituted against him to recover the client's property, and, on his being defeated therein, he entered into a systematic course of vilification of the courts, and all who did not agree with him, through a newspaper, and, being later retained to prosecute another for murder, asserted through numerous published articles that proceedings then pending against him for disbarment were instituted to prevent his success in that prosecution, charging impropriety and corruption against the judges of the Supreme Court. Petitioner, an attorney of 20 years' standing, contracted with his client of an hour's acquaintance, whereby he was to receive $10,000, which was all the client's assets, for defending her against the charge of murder, and thereafter openly asserted that she was guilty of murder. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |