The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-09-16
Supreme Court Passes Judgment
On Champefty Case.
DIsBARMENT is STAYED
EVANS & ROGERS MUST PAY
BACK OVER So, 600 TO CLIENTS.

Doth of the respondents be deprived of
the right TO practice as attorneys-at-
law in any of the courts in Utah until
they have deposited with the clerk of
the supreme court for the benefit of the
widow and two minor children of
CHARLES A Nelson, deceased, the sum
of 81, 1888. with interest thereon at the
rate OF per cent yearly from Dec. %.
1875. and the further sum of S175, the
Zee OF Referee D. H Twomey. who
took and reported the testimony in the
proceeding and reported it to the court.
Inc opinion was written by Justice
Baskln and fully concurred in by Jus
tice Miner
The further order of the court is to
the effect that if the attorneys fail to
make such payment within sixty DAYS
from this date or to show cause why
they have not done so, decree shall
then be entered permanently disbarring
each of them and striking their names
from the roll CT attorneys and counsel
ors-at-law.
Bartch Stands For Severer Pain.
Chief Justice Bartch is of the opin-
ION that both AIessrs. Evans and Rog-
ers should be punished more severely
Ior thelr conduct, as appears in the
following addenda to the courts de-
c1slen, penned by the chief justice him
self:
L concur in the judgment herein. the
same so far as it goes. being in accord
win my views 1 am of the opinion
however. from an examination of the
brief filed on behalf Of the respondents.
ana or the record, the inffictiOn of some
punishment other than the mere pay
ment of money by the respondents,
which, as now appears from their brief
is admittedly due from them, would be
warranted and justified.
- Wnen an attorney is guilty Of de-
hberately violating the confidence re-
posed IN him by the court, and his duty
to his client, the punishment ought to
De commensurate with his wrong
doing. The dignity of the court the
purity OF the profession. the peace of
individuals. the protection of clients.
and the public good alike demand
this"
Statement of the Case.
Such is the decision of the supreme
court in reviewing the evidence in the
dlsbarment proceedings instituted last
May on complaint of Farley L. WI
hams against Messrs. Evans and Rog-
ers Tor champertous conduct in con-
nectlon with their defense of the suit
instituted in the Second district court
by Thomas Nelson for recovery OF a
percentage of the fee earned py the re-
spondents as attorneys for the heirs of
charles A Nelson of Ogden, VINO was
killed in a railroad wreck at Truckee,
Cal. in January. 1892. in recovery of
for his tragic death.
1t appeared from the record in the
case that the widow authorized her
brother-in-law, Alfred H. Nelson the 1
admlnistrG tor, to employ counsel TO
prosecute the damage suit against the
railroad company. and he engaged
Evans & Rogers on a contract whereby
he was to receive a third of half of any
sum recovered as dana ges the other
half to go to the widow and her two
little children Subsequently, it ap-
pears, the law firm entered into a con-
tract with Thomas Nelson. another
brother, whereby Thomas was cCnSid-
cred an assignee of A. H. Nelson's con-
tingent claim, and he was to receive
the third of the half of the lawyers
half of the judgment in consideration
of his securing the witnesses for the
plaintiff in the damage suit
The case passed to judgment and in
the latter part of December, 1898, the
railroad company paid $4,000 as dam
ages for the death of the brother of
the Nelson's. Subsequently Thomas
Nelson brought suit for 81, 793. SO, which
was a third of half of the amount re-
ceived by Evans & Rogers, the attor-
neys in the damage suit fought for the
widow and her minor children. AS a
defense to this suit of Thomas Nelson
the attorneys set up that the contract
to share the half of the judgment was
and void. and the lower
court sustained the demurrer of the
defendant attorneys. Then followed the
in disbarment.
Censure of the Court.
After reviewing the issues in The
case at bar, the supreme court opinion
states: IF the respondents evans &
ROgerS) had refused to pay the claim
made by Thomas Nelson and defeated
q recovery for the purpose of protect
ing the interests of the widow and |
minor children, it would have been a |
strong mitigating circumstance in /
favor. But such was not their inten- |
ton. The facts in the case conclusive |
ly show that they resisted the claim /
Of Thomas Nelson in order that they
might retain for themselves the amount !
sought to be recovered. In respon- /
dents answer they failed to state that /
It was their intention to protect their /
clients, or that even now they intend to /
pay to them the amount withheld from T
them in the disbursement heretofore Z
The declaration in the re- /
5pondents' brief that they were made /
trustees of that amount for their eli |
ents, the real beneficiaries, was evil I
IDENTIFY an afterthought.
AT the argument before us. when /
the attention of respondents counsel /
was called to that declaration, one of |
them. in the presence of one of the re-
spondents, and in the face of patent /
his name was attached. /
rs an attorney, to said brief disputed !
hat declaration and declared that the
were entitled to retain the 4
whole sum distributed to them; and 4
the respondent, who was 1
present, had personally appeared and i
made an argument on the demurrer TO /
he information, he failed to interpose !
any objection to the claim of his at
-orney, or declare that it was then, or /
ayer had been his intention, or the in |
entiOn of his correspondent, to pay to /
heir clients said amount of $1,7933.33.
from them in the distribution
If the funds"
Sharing Widows Proceeds.
After noting that the plea that Thom-
IS Nelson and Alfred Nelson were
brothers is indefensible, and that the
object of the contract in question was
o indirectly obtain for Alfred Nelson
| share of the. fruits of the litigation
Is an attorneys fee which it was not
he should earn, the decision
declares that the transaction was an
attempt on the part of Alfred Nelson |
md Thomas Nelson to secure a profit
rom the death of their brother to the
Ietriment of his widow and minor I
The widow and children were
lot parties to the contract, and it did
lot appear, the court a. that they
we're ever informed or L. . its ex-
stence.
This contract" the sion de-
lares, was not only cham, our |
.lso obnoxious, because it was agsisst
he interests of the widow and minor.
= nd ]