Case Title: Ex Parte Chattanooga Bar Association

Citation: 330 S.W.2d 337

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1959-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
330 S.W.2d 337 (1959) Ex parte CHATTANOOGA BAR ASSOCIATION. Supreme Court of Tennessee. December 11, 1959. *338 A. Fred Rebman, III, W.A. Wilkerson and Joe V. Williams, Jr., Chattanooga, for Bar Ass'n. H. James Hitching and W. Neil Thomas, Jr., Chattanooga, amici curiae. NEIL, Chief Justice. The Chattanooga Bar Association filed its original bill in the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, the same being an Ex Parte action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court to purge the legal profession of members who are, by their unethical and unlawful conduct, bringing reproach upon the court and the profession. The petitioner is a non-profit membership corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee, whose members are qualified to practice in the Chancery Court as well as all other courts in Hamilton County. The petition is signed and sworn to by officers and members of the Board of Governors of the Association and charges that while the great majority of attorneys "licensed to practice before your Honor's Court" conform to the legal and ethical standards required of their profession, "there is an increasing minority of attorneys (so licensed) who have been and are disregarding such requirements." It further charges: "During recent months an increasing number of complaints have been lodged with this committee, complaining primarily of, but not limited to, the following types of violations of law and of the legal ethics of the profession: Paragraph IV of the petition reads as follows: The specific prayer for relief, based upon the foregoing averments in the petition are, as follows: Upon filing the petition the Chancellor entered the following order: A motion was duly filed by the appointed counsel to dismiss the petition on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to receive and consider said petition because (1) no offending attorney was named or otherwise identified; (2) the court is without jurisdiction to order a general investigation into the conduct of attorneys; (3) the relief sought is foreign and unknown to the jurisdiction of the court; and (4) the jurisdiction for this *340 type of petition is exclusively in the Supreme Court of Tennessee. The Chancellor sustained the motion and dismissed the petition. From his decree counsel for petitioner prayed and were granted an appeal to this Court. The petitioner challenges the correctness of the Chancellor's decree in the following assignment of error: Preliminary to our discussion and action upon the foregoing assignment it should be said that the opinions of the learned Chancellor are highly respected by the Bar and the members of this Court. The important question made on this appeal involves not only the honor and integrity of the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, the esteem in which it is held by the public generally, but it involves every other court as well. We must disagree with the Chancellor (1) that the Chancery Court is without inherent jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue, and (2) that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction of the said issue. The amici curiae who advised with the Chancellor upon the issues, and who are representing his theory of the case in this Court, have done a good job, so to speak, and for their continued cooperation we express our appreciation. There is no merit in the contention that the petition should be dismissed because no person or persons are named, or otherwise described, as offenders against the honor and dignity of the court or the legal profession. But the Chancery Court and all other courts in Hamilton County are named as victims of unethical practice by officers of the courts, and who are sworn to protect its power and authority. The petition portrays a condition which we are bound to accept as true. The proper administration of justice in the courts of this State is paramount to all other matters, and requires the utmost vigilance by judges and officers alike to the end that its judgments and decrees bear no taint of dishonor. Considering the nature of the charges specifically pointed out in the petition the Chancellor must exercise his inherent authority to inquire as to who it is among many officers who are doing these dastardly things, and what judgments and decrees are affected thereby. It would unduly prolong this opinion for us to discuss the authorities mentioned in the Chancellor's memorandum opinion, and distinguish them from the cases cited on the brief of counsel for the petitioner. The issue before us is not without precedent in jurisdictions other than Tennessee, where the courts have exercised their inherent jurisdiction in dealing with conditions similar to those described in the case at bar. First of all we are not at all impressed with the suggestion that innocent persons may suffer by such unlimited investigation as is sought by petitioner in this case. To be sure there is a limitation upon the inherent authority of every court. But the courts must be trusted with complete authority, consistent with constitutional rights and privileges of all citizens, to protect its own honor from those who would prostitute its processes for unlawful personal gain. Coming now to the determinative issue, i.e., the inherent jurisdiction of the Chancery Court to appoint special commissioners to investigate and inquire into unethical and unlawful practice of law, one of the leading cases which supports the petitioner's contention in all respects is People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 248 N.Y. 465, 162 N.E. 487, 488, 60 A.L.R. 851. It is there held (Cardozo, Ch. J.) as follows: The conditions which existed and which are reviewed by the court are not different from conditions alleged in the case at bar. As a result of these unlawful practices, Judge Cardozo says: The historic development of the inherent power of the Court of Chancery in the matter of disciplinary action against offending attorneys, and other officers of the court, is ably and exhaustively discussed by the New York Court of Appeals, citing a long line of decisions by the English Courts. The opinion of the court affords interesting and instructive reading for members of the legal profession. Other cases which are directly in point are the following: In re Investigation by Bar Ass'n of Hudson County, 109 N.J.L. 275, 160 A. 809; In re Keenan, 287 Mass. 577, 192 N.E. 65, 96 A.L.R. 679; and In re Heirich, 10 Ill. 2d 357, 140 N.E.2d 825, 67 A.L.R.2d 827. Moreover the opinion of Judge Cardozo, supra, is cited with approval by our Court of Appeals in Memphis & Shelby County Bar Ass'n v. Vick, Tenn App., 290 S.W.2d 871. Additional authority pertaining to the inherent power of the court is found in 5 Am.Jur. (Attorneys at Law), Section 250, page 411, as follows: The foregoing text is supported by numerous cases referred to in the footnotes, among which are People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, supra, and many others dealing with the same subject. We do not understand that there is any disagreement with the insistence that the court has inherent jurisdiction, independent of the statute, in the matter of disbarment and discipline of attorneys. State v. Bomar, 179 Tenn. 67, 162 S.W.2d 515. In Davis v. State, 92 Tenn. 634, 23 S.W. 59, 61, after referring to a statute providing for a *342 summary remedy by motion against an attorney, it is said: Contention is finally made that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of disbarment proceedings, the same being evidenced by the adoption of Rule 40, 192 Tenn. 827. While the Court has acted in a few instances under this Rule, and has appointed members of the Bar to investigate charges lodged with the Chief Justice against an individual lawyer, we have never considered the said Rule as an exclusive remedy. It has never been thought of as denying to trial courts their inherent authority to discipline members of the Bar, or to entertain a motion by any lawyer, or any Bar Association, to investigate the unethical and unlawful practice of law. In dealing with the important problem now before us we are continually reminded that the court must exercise its inherent power with due caution in order to safeguard the innocent from the evil minded, from personal hate and above all from the tongue of slander. But above all the court must act with courage to protect its own fair name as an institution where justice and honor reside and constitute the pole star of its life. This is paramount to all other issues. We think the Chancellor was in error in dismissing the petition in this case. It is accordingly reversed and remanded with directions that Special Commissioners be appointed to conduct the investigation as prayed for under the strict supervision of the Chancellor. The said Commissioners may be residents of Hamilton County, or may reside in another Chancery Division, and shall have power to subpoena witnesses, said subpoena to issue as in all other cases. The findings of fact by the Commissioners shall be disclosed only to the Chancellor, who shall take such action, by citation or otherwise, as the disclosed situation may justify. The petitioner must be adjudged to pay the cost of this proceeding, and it is so ordered.