Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1904-03-16
DISBARMENr UNCALLED FOR


bank refuses to pay the money, | viii
sue the bank. This disposes of the
charge that respondent, by false rep.
reservations. sought absolutely to
guarantee that he could obtain the
money Immediately. With these reas.
enable precautions for the information
of Sumner as to the contents and
meaning of the document, and other
evidence relating to the interview,
do not find that the charge of mislead.
ing Sumner by false representations In
relation to his engagement Of respond.
ent in this matter Is sustained, in
spite of the possibility, or probability.
as appears by Summers testimony that
he may not have fully understood tho
power Of attorney in all its details.
With this finding. II follows, as a mat.
ter of course that the respondent was
acting professionally in assisting In
the conduct of the case of Ropert V.
Sumner ct al.
Suit for Fees.
As to the charge that respondent ex.
torted from Sumner $4,000 for his fees
in these proceedings, by the threat
that he would sue Sumner on the pro.
missory note for $4,000 for the whole
amount and garnishee the $4S,025 OBJ.
tanned by Sumner by the decision In
the Ropert case,-that was a matter
between attorney and client, which
although perhaps open to criticism.
was not, In my opinion. conduct which
supports the charge of gross impro.
priety. Every attorney has the right
to sue his client for his fees and he
does not, to my mind. go beyond his
rights in threatening to sue him for
such fees. II Is in evidence that Sum.
ner offered him 81 800 for these serv.
ices. The respondent claimed $4,000
and demanded 1t in peremptory man.
ner In the presence of his brother
counsel and r. w. Davis, who was, to
a certain extent, Summers adviser, and
Sumner finally, upon consultation with
X. W. Davis, proposed a compromise,
offering him $4,000, which respondent
accepted.
Peculiar Temperament.
In the consideration Of this case,
some allowance must be made for the
peculiar disposition Of the respondent;
his impetuous nature, and excitable
temper which, at times, carrying him
to the verge Of unreasonableness and
perhaps to an almost abnormal mental
condition, renders his words and &C.
tions less significant in such circum.
stances than would be the case with
"A person Of calmer and more DELHI.
crate temperament.
5000. Fee.
The fee of 5000 obtained by re.
spondent for himself and his fellow
counsel in the earlier proceedings men.
toned in this case, was to my mind, an
exorbitant charge for the services rem.
dered, one case being a simple action
for the appointment of a guardian on
the theory of Summers mental incapac.
ity to attend to his own affairs, which
case was dismissed by the Circuit
Court by consent Of counsel; and the
other case being q suit to set aside
trust deed and for an injunction, which
suit was dismissed before going to
trial upon affidavits as stated above.
This unreasonable charge for fees,
taken in connection with the written
agreement for such fees set forth
above, implying purpose to misuse
the process of the court for obtaining
them, shows misconduct on the part
of the respondent that the court can.
not ignore. II is true that there Is no
complaint against respondent by any
vi MS CleHts, yet tne cOnClIldtOfy ma
ture Of many Hawaiians is such, and
their submlssiveness toward foreign
ers so great, that they Will, In many
cases, silently yield to harsh demands,
and II Is the duty of the court to pro.
tect litigants even though they make
no complaint, from such treatment, by
attorneys of this court. These actions
occurred In connection With proceed
ings before other courts, yet the re.
spondent Is a member of the bar of
this court and this matter having been
brought to the cognizance OF this court
at the request of respondent, its inves-
tigation and action thereon cannot be
avoided.
Davis Integrity.
An important feature of this case is
the testimony Of number of citizens
including judges of the Circuit Court,
leading lawyers and business men, ex.
pressing unequivocally their confidence
In respondents integrity. This ex.
preston is very significant. showing
an mistaken confidence in the respond.
ents character as to integrity in spite
of the proceedings in the disbarment
case. This expression may arise from