The San Francisco call., 1897-12-07
LAWYER BOONE
UNDER THE BAN
Judge Morrow Ordered His
Name Stricken From
the Roll.
Disbarred On a Charge Of Sell
ing His knowledge of an
Ex-Client's S Affairs.
A Decision That Is Expected to Go
Down to Posterity as
Precedent.

United States Circuit Judge Morrow, in
an elaborate decision embracing abou;
13, 600 words. has stricken the name of
John L. Boone from the roll OF attorneys
of his court.
This act was done in the presence of the
highest legal talent of this State. Among
those who listened to the decree were the
brightest legal minds in California, and
among those brightest minds were few
who need ask no odds in legal acumen
from the most celebrated mem bers OF the
judiciary of the American Republic or
the British Empire.
The first part OF Judge Morrow's opinion
dealt with the history OF the case. Then
he quoted many authorities, some OF
them recondite and rarely quoted, as to
the power OF the court 10 dlsbar an attor-
ney for conduct tending to bring the pro-
fesSion into disrepute, after which the
eclsion went to the first char1e ug linst
Boone, that of having BETRAYED his client,
or, more accurately speaking, of having
offered 10 give the adversaries of his ex-
client the benefit OF the alleged knowl-
edge gained by him while acting as hls
attorney.
Touching upon the first charge, the
Judge said:
The evidence shows conclusively that Boone
on June II, 1897, wrote the following letter
TO Thomas A. Banning, the attorney for Mr..
Bates, in the action OF Bowers VS. Bates:
SAN FRANcIsco, June II, 1887.
M Thomas Bdnnfng -DEAR SIR: Yours Of June
1 received. Without in any way rejoicing upon
your good fai and tegrity would hardly be ad-
vlsaoIe for me TO put IN physical evidence the
Use would b. maze of it. or what my position In
ard thereto wou De Suffice to say that my
relation TO this case gu usiifies me to state that
the fact refer to is not simply import ant one,
but is vital one
In my opinion, it will reverse the decree a ready
rendered and will taKe the sting out of Bowe rs
patents Mind you, Mr. Bowers and I have never
quarreled; We never had word of misunder-
sanding.
Since the incident refer to occurred have re-
framed from taking nny active psrt his case.
My withdrawal from his case was voluntary on my
part after he had Obtained his final decree in
Won Schmidt case. drew he contract Of mutual
Ie.eAse mys'lt without any previous conVersA-
ton wi h him, and after signing 1t sent 20 him
for his signature He did not even know that
cOnttmE LATED Withdrawing from his case. he
never refused 10 pay me money! fact,
have never asked him for cent. Ny withdrawal
WAS because ! knew the decree was frauduiently
obtained, and could not remain he case under
such circumstance.
my re case Bowers releases me from all obliga-
tions rights and priv eyes and consents that may
take emp oyHent contra, so tn u J am perfectly
free 10 take emf ployment from Mr.. Ba;es o. from
any one else without in any way violating u: pro-
fessiona honor. If had remained in the case
with Bowers an he had teen finally successful
there is doubt but what 1 would have been
largely paid but rifced all that my sense
OF Iight and duty. l harIIy know what TO Suggest
under the crcumsta es, but you can readily see
that 1t wou d not be wise for me give my knowl-
cage on paper at This time. il AR. BATES want 20
retain me then it .ther matter. as am iree TO
accept his employment Very truly yours,
JOHN l. BooNE.
In so far, however as he proposed
70 use the knowledge or information he had
gained from his professional relations with
Mr.. Bowers in the examination of witnesses,
his conduct was certainly unprofessional, and
sIar tan 2 NFNsr
stances cannot be condoned. Ii was an act OF
disloyalty and infide.i;y TO his client and a
breach of the obligation he owed.
The decision here entered upon a most
serious charge.
II is a fact of significance tina. the
respondent tes tified as witness on behalf of
the petitioner in the case OF Bowers VS.. San
Francisco Bridge Company that the exhibit
which he now says was muIilated by Bowers
was in the same condition as II had always
been. This testimony was gwen afr the
alleged act of muIilatiou in the Master OF
Chsncery's room had occurred.
Under this state of facts am led to the In
evlta bic conclusion that the respondent IS
guilty of one of TWO things: either ne tcs i.
fed fal sely and misled the Court in his testi-
mony given TO the Court and jury in the
of Bowers vs.. San Francisco Bridge Company,
or else the statement in bis letter to Mr. Ban
ming that the decree in the Won Schmidt case
had been fraudulently obtained was false
hood and pure fabrication of his mind, made
wi th the evident purpose of throwing dis
credit on his former clients decree 10 impair
its value as a precedent and authority, and
also to insure mis- EN- ployment by Mr.. Bates.
II the Court s satisfied that the re-
spondent did not testify fully and truly, a
conviction for perjury Il not necessary pre-
requisite 10 dlSSarment. If, however. the
Court should take the alternative, viz : that
the respondent testified truly, but that he
grossly mlsrepresented matters in his letter to
Mr.. Banning, the result is equally unfortunate
for the respondent. In either event
he ought 10 be disbarred LAWYER
nn n nah aatf
deemed fit member of the profession.
In concluding This already lengthy opin-
ion l cannot do better than quote the felic-
itous language of Justice Brewer then Cir
cult Judge, in United States VS.. Costen, supra,
as follows:
1T is the glory of our profession that it,
fidelity TO Its cl enl can be depended on; that
q man may safely 60 to lnwye and converse
with HIM upon his rights or supposed rights
| in any litigation with the absolute assurance
that that lawyers tongue is tied from ever
disclosing II and any lawyer who proves false
to such an obi CATION and betrays or seeks to
oetray any information or any facts that he
Las attained while employed on the one side
is gui ty of the grossest breach OF trust
/ can tolerate great many things that
lawyer may do-thiI5s that in and OF them
serves may perhaps be criticized condemned
when done in obedience to the interest or
imposed interest Of his own client and
wnen he is seeking simply 10 protect and up
hold those interests. II ne goes be eyond per
maps the limits OF propriety, can tolerate al d
pass that by; but | cannot tolerate for mo-
ment, neither can the profession, neither can
the comm unity, any disloyaity on the part of
a lawyer to his client IN all things he must
be true 10 that trust, or, failing 1t, he must
leave the profession.
The application for disbarment will be
granted, and the respondent will ytand
dlsbarred and his name will be stricken
from the roll OF attorneys and counsellors
of this court; and 1t is. SO ordered.
Robert I. Hayne, president of the Bar
Association, was in the United States Cir
cult Court when the censure was passed
on Attorney Boone. When asked if the
Bar Association proposed to take action
on the subject. Mr.. Hayne replied that he
could not give any information on that
topic. The question, he thought, would
be met in the regular order at the next
meeting OF the asso ciation. He was NOT
inclined himself TO advise haste.
HELD FOR MURDER,
DIR. Samuel III. Hall without Bail and