The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1899-07-01
BRIEF FILED IN THE SUPREME
COURT.
The Conduct OF the Attorney General
Vigorously Challenged-No Honeyed
Phrases Used.

in the supreme court yesterday after
noon The following is w. A. Kinney's
brief.
The professional responsibility for
drawing the complaint in this case and
securing the order to show cause rests
upon the undersigned who was absent
on Kauai when the case was presented
to the court. AS the action of counsel
In the premises. has it is understood
been criticised and impugned in argu-
ment before the court by counsel for the
respondent, the undersigned begs leave
to present his views of the case in the
following supplementary brief in addi-
tion to the brief presented by our Mr.
McClanahan, absolutely disclaiming at
the outset any unworthy or personal
motive from first to last, and re-affirm-
ing his absolute confidence in the entire
proprietary of these proceedings, and
the necessity for judicial condemnation
of the defendant.
Professional misconduct may arise
through inadvertence, stubbornness.
conceit. or lack of sense, quite as well
as from corrupt or dishonest motives.
All corrupt action on the part of an at
torney is of course unprofessional, but
all unprofessional conduct is by no
means corrupt.
To prove the absence of a corrupt or
| dishonest motive may constitute no de-
| fense to a charge like this, though it
must always go of course to the ques-
! ton of punishment.
| Law partners might openly take op-
! poste sides in a case and honestly and
vigorously fight the battle of their re-
! spective clients to finish, with as COM
! plete fidelity as if they had never seen
| each other; yet their conduct, we sub
nit would still be grossly unprofession-
! al. Nor is unprofessional conduct with
an absence of corrupt or dishonest mo-
| . Nv,t6 kTV. n
the contrary such misconduct may often
involve matters of the most vital i'm
portance and far-reaching conse-
quences.
| The evil effect of open misconduct,
such as drunkenness or disorderly con-
duct in court by an individual attorney
or even downright dishonesty or cor
Iruption on his part, may and probably
would be small, when compared with
the train of mischief that would follow
from the adoption of vicious and un-
sound principle, even through mere in
advertence.
Applying the above observations to
this case, we contend that the principle
here involved, is of most vital import
ance, and the necessity for clean cut,
uncOmpromising condemnation of the
cnrtenton of respondent, most impera-
tive, and this though it is not case in
voving moral turpitude on the part of
charged in that direction is that the
motive of respondent at certain points
was unworthy, selfish and involved a
deliberate misuse of power. 1t is not a
case calling for the smashing of the re-
spondent, but it is one calling for the
| teetotal smashing and utter demolition
of his contention beyond resurrection
in any manner, shape or form. We
charge that it is unprofessional con-
! duct for an attorney to allow himself
to be put in a position where he can
control both sides of a case at one and
the same time, whether as a matter of
fact he does so control the case or not.
Potentially, or power to control both
sides of the case, is not within the scope
of an attorneys authority or privilege,
and the issue thus presented can never
be considered a mere irregularity or
trifling distinction. The issue thus rails
ed is, we contend, primary, fundamen-
tai, and one to command the grave at
tention of the court, and none the less
so because the Attorney general insists
that the court shall give it's Gncondi-
tional sanction to his action in the
premises. The court we contend fur
ther, in considering such an issue, will
not spend much time in figuring how
near 1t can come to permitting a breach
to be made in the principle in question,
without actually doing so, but rather
how far it can go in keeping the profess
sion from even the appearance of evil
in the premises. In laying down prin-
ciples for the professional guidance and
restraint of it's officers and in main
tanning the integrity of such principles
the benefit of the doubt can play no
part, except it be that all doubts are
resolved in favor of maintaining the
standards inviolate.
Can anyone read or hear the evidence
in this case, without seeing that the un-
Iii 4 II
es the fact, that the respondent delib-
erately, and with his eyes open, and
against the protest of complainant
chose to put himself in a position
where he could control both the pros
ecution and defense, of the case in
question. And we might add, that the
evidence shows quite as clearly, that
he in fact, did control both sides; but
it matters not, as We contend whether
he did or not. He could, and where one
cam it is not long before one does The
situation naturally and irresistibly
, brings but that one result. In this very
case, respondent had no sooner decided
! after some waVering, to keep the
strings of both sides of the case in hi
, hands. than be commenced to play will
them, and we find him pulling Hum
phreys down into silence and acquies
cence by coercive threat to shut him ou
of the case altogether, which would
nave resulted III lne nldfSildl pfOSeCuI
ing and the attorney generals clerk de
+ Tending, and both thus acting as a re
suit of defendants personal interven
tion and personal direction. Only Hum
phrey's humiliatng submission pre-
+. vented such a spectacle. Imagine wha
effect it would have upon native police
men and the police court officials
- throughout, to see the marshal pros
b ecutng and the attorneygenerari
clerk appearing in the police court anC
> defending; both drawing pay for theil
, services in the same case from the
; same source, and all this receiving tn,
, sanction and approval of the highes
tribunal i'm the land. Would not such
: spectacle create tmidity, perpleXity
; and shuftiing on the part of police Off
! GERS in giving their evidence for th
l prosecution. Marshal Brown would ac
Independently If anyone could unde
the circumstances, but what abou
r many inexperienced deputy sheriff.
Continued on page six)