The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-08-11

| a retainer or $oVO) $l,OVO 10 one OdlH-
| cart, a friend of Sumner. and $475 for
stamps on the deed, leaving s4s,o25.
which Summer shortly after withdrew
| for himself"
| 1.-The charges against each of these
| respondents are in general of pro-
fessional improprieties, malpractice,
deceit and infidelity to his client, and
gross misconduct, and more partic-
ularly Tin substance. without setting
| forth the details of the complaint) that
| they acted as attorneys for Sumner in
| the railroad and guardianship cases,
| and knew that ali claims of the Ellises
| Including Mrs. Buffandeau, nee Ellis)
| to the proceeds OF the sale had been
| disposed of in the settlement referred
| to, but that nevertheless soon after
| such settlement and especially in the
Rop>rt case they acted as attorneys
for tn, Ellises in opposition to the in
terests of their former client, Sumner.
A further charge is made against the
respondent Humphreys, to the effect
| that, while acting as such attorney for
the Ellises, he proposed to ]. A. Ma
COON, as attorney for Sumner. that he,
Magoon. should betray the interests
of his client, Sumner, and induce him
to submit to a further and extortion-
ate demand on the said funds by the
Ellises and that said Humphreys anu
Magoon should each demand and take
an unreasonably large fee therefor.
and threatened that unless his pro-
posal was accepted he would prevent
by the use of legal process said Sum-
ner from exercising any control over
said funds during the rest of his,
Summers. life"
GRAVITY OF CHARGES.
These are grave charges" the court
says and, considering the nature of ,
proceedings of this kind and the pos
sible results to practitioners and their
families. it is held to go without say
ing that the court should act in all
cases of this kind with unusual eau
ton both in weighing the evidence and
in determining the penalty, and such
is the course laid down In the books.
And yet, however disagreeable the
function of passing upon the alleged ,
wrongful conduct of member of d
noble profession, the. court, as liFe-
wise laid down in the books, has
responsibility in the matter and can
not shirk it's duty. The nobler the pro-
fession the greater the care that
should be observed in keeping it's prac-
tice unsullied. In United States V.
Costen, 3S Fed. "a, Mr.. Justice Brewer.
of the United States Supreme Court,
then Circuit Judge. in disbarring an
attorney for merely seeking employ
ment on one side after his employment ,
had ceased on the other and suggest
ing that he had in his possession i'm
portant facts. said: Now, ii Is the
glory of our profession that its fidelity ,
to it's client can be depended on; that
a man may safely go to a lawyer and
n inn RIGHTS NJ
supposed rights in any litigation with |
the absolute assurance that that law |
yer's tongue is tied from ever dis |
closing IL; and any lawyer who proves |
false to such an obligation, and be- |
trays or seeks to betray any infor- |
nation or any facts that he has at
tanned while employed on the one side. |
is guilty of the grossest breach of
trust. 1 can tolerate a great many |
things that a lawyer may do,-things
that in and of themselves may per-
haps be criticised or condemned when
done in obedience to the interest or
supposed interest of his own client,
and when he is seeking simply to pro-
tect and uphold those interests. If he
goes beyond, perhaps, the limits of
propriety, 1 can tolerate and pass that
by; but 1 cannot tolerate for a mo-
ment, neither can the profession,
neither can the community, any dis
loyalty on the part of a lawyer to his
client. In all things he must be true
to that trust, or, failing it, he must
leave the profession -
GUILTY IN PART.
After quoting other authority, the
court proceeds to say:
Realizing our duty to the respond
ents on the one hand and to the pro-
fession and the public on the other
we have, after hearing the evidence at
the trial and observing the witnesses,
read over all of the 573 pages of testi-
mony and numerous documents intro
duced and considered them with the
utmost care, but after making all due
allowances on the side of caution and
leniency we are constrained by the
force of facts to find the respondents
guilty Of the charges in part at least.
The first question naturally is, what
were the relations between the re-
spondents and Sumner in the litiga-
ton UP to the time of the settlement
and what in the subsequent proceed
ings. There is no question as to the
latter. The respondents, especially
Mr. Humphreys, acting for the EIlises
look active steps the very day after
sumner withdrew the $4S, OPS, to pre-
vent his keeping 1t, and in consequence
OF their action the Bishop brought the
suit. out Of abundant caution, as we
believe, TO obtain the opinion of the
court as to the propriety of this pay
ment of the money to Sumner. and
throughout that case the respondents.
especially Mr.. Humphreys, represent