Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1916-06-08

The matter of ethics WAS one for them
70 decide for themselves. But such an
incident lacks value as an excuse
The utmost that IS claimed Is that the
attorney said that he had no objee-
ton
But even had there been an cX-
press consent, the power of IN attor-
nev employed hN an estate for a re-
stricted purpose did not include an
agreement that suit in another court
might be brought against the estate.
In addition the conversation did not
pretend to be an expression upon
ethics, hut that matter was in terms
RENTED to the place where il he
longed, to-wit. the conscience Of the
respondents.
Defense tna,aiIing.
AS an evidence OF good faith. the
! incident likewise lacks importance for
the reason that The gist of the present
charge Is not the bringing Of the suit
! IN 1919, but that respondents showed
lack Of professional integrity in using
confidential information received in
July, 1910, as q guide hy which 70
seek for and locate their client in Au-
gust, 1910 What may have been done
I'm 1912 is matter far subsequent to
the relevant issue which arose in
1910
Equally unavallng is the further
defense made by respondents that as
the Garcias never objected To re-
spondenis appearing in case 10. 202
during the progress Of the litigation
from 1919 10 1914 they are To Re
deemed to have waived any objection
thereto. Bun the question mere is not
one of the rights of the Garcias. but
las to whether respondents have adj
hered to proper professional stand
ards. The silence of the Garcias,
while being made the victims Of I'M
professional conduct by members Of
the bar, cannot mitigate the laws
prohibition upon such conduct and
can not avail to render the respond
ents immune from the consequences
of such misconduct
1T is accordingly found, as to the
first charge, that the respondents,
owen ~ Marion and Francis T..
Wood, and each of them, is guilty as
charged. and that the conduct of each
in the respects charged was contrary
to the ethics of the profession Of the
law.
Second Charge Sustained.
- Charge concerns itself not
with the manner in which respond
ents obtained the information AS to
the existence in salt Lake city of a
claimant against the Elias Garcia es-
tate, but with the accusation that the
respondents. having such information,
however acquired. used ii as a basis
upon which to- advertise for a client
and thus to stir up a protractive and
extensive litigation against the Elias
Garcia estate The fact of this sulici-
tation for business is not denied That
the conduct of respondents in this
respect was unethica was frankly
admitted on the stand in the present
trial by the respondent Wood. The
code of ethics of the American Bar
association and of the Bar Associa
ton of New Mexico is each to the
same effect, Such conduct is equally
denounced by the common law.
Respondents are accordingly found
guilty under charge 2
80 a careful consideration Of
charge 3, which it will be noted is
against the respondent Marion alone.
leads to the belief IN It's truth AM
additional finding. made upon re-
spondent's request on August 6, 1915.
in the case Of Garvia vs. Garcia. No.
202. upon the single question of
whether Marion & Wood had been
connected with the fabrication of four
exhibits in the Garcia case. and leav
ing Nndsturbed and untouched the
expressions of the court as to the con
duct Of respondents on all other feat
ures of the case, was within day OF
two after the making of the finding
represented to the public by a number
Of newspapers, including the Alhu
qucrque Evening Herald. as eXonerat-
ing the firm Of Marion & Wood, from
all suspicion If vTongdoing in CON
nection with the famous ease Of Gar
Cia IS. Garcia. of this intended mis-
SttltFIftii VI Niif RpNiA ttlibll ~
spondent Marion had knowledge be-
fore the publication, and in il he ac-
guessed. The conclusion is inevitable
that he was more DESTROYS of a vim
dication, however unWarranted. in the
public mind, than that the action OF
the court should be correctly report !
ed. This was TO overlook the fact that
as an officer of the court the duty
rests upon an attorney 10 guard the /
court against Misrepresentation be-
fore the public That respondent !
Marion did not do this constituted a |
failure in his professional duty and |
he is found guilty
Fabrication Not Proved
Il. The prosecuting committee are
unanimous in the position, and have |
so stated in open court, that the
fourth charge. accusing respondents I
of completely in the fabrication Of /
exhibits f44-b, l45, 14e-b and AZ.
used in the case of Garcia VS.. Garcia. !
No. 202 and of using such letters |
knowing them to be spurious, should |
be dismissed. Upon careful review
of the extended testimony taken upon
this trial as 10 this issue, the court
concurs in the view of the committee !
and holds that this charge is not sus-
tanned by the proof. In view of the
additional proofs presented upon the /,
present trial. the court reiterates as
its conclusion the findings made on
August g. 1915, as follows
The court finds no evidence in
the case iustifying the belief that