El Nuevo mexicano., 1916-06-08

received as a result OF such employ
ment and Ia the course Of consultation
bthereunder certain information to this
effect that q woman living IN Sal
Lake City, and claiming to be the wife
OF ELIAS Garcia, was likely to make .
claim ~Jeonardizlng the whole estate
The representation Of Mrs Garcia By
Maroon and Wood terminated about
August /, 1910. but the confidential In
formation which they possessed as
result of the brief employment, and
especially upon the point above named
still necessarily remained with them
On August 10, 1910, the possession o.
this information led to their adyertis
ing in q newspaper at Salt Lake City
the place that had been named to them
as the residence of this claimant, in
which advertisement there was an in
vitaticnN for "Mrs. Elias Garcia, the
wife of Elias Garcia, of Albuquerque
New Mexico, to call" A person claim
ing to be within the description re.
sponded to the advertisement and
contracts we're entered into By re
spondents to represent her and her In
FAINT child. This was followed by It'll
CATION on behalf Of that child IN the
above named case, No. 202. Thus II
came about that confidential informa'
tion received by respondents during
enc employment was used by them e
secure a client adverse to that EN-
%pIcynent. This was clearly unethical
Information so received Is sacred to
the employment to which II pertains
and to JurMit il to be used IN tie IN
terest Of another, or. worse still, IN
the interest of the adverse party, Is
to strike at the element of confidence
which lies at the basis Of, and affords
the essential security In, the relation
Of attorney and client. Respondents
seek to meet this view Of the matter
upon the ground, first, that they, IN
1912, and before the bringing OF case
No. 202, asked the opinion of the at.
torney who had succeeded them in
representing the Garcia estate In the
probate court, as to whether that at.
itorney objected to respondents bring
ing case No. 2D2, and whether the at
torney thought it ethically permissa-
Bile to bring the suit. and that such
attorney stated he had no objection to
the bringing of the suit by Marion
and Wood, but that the matter Of eth
les was one for them to decide for
themselves. But such an incident
lacks value as an excuse. The utmost
that is claimed is that the attorney
said he had no objection.
But even had there been an EXPRESS
consent, the power of an attorney EN-
ployed by an estate for a restricted
purpose did not include an agreement
that a suit in another court might be
brought against the state. In addition,
the conversation did not pretend to be
an expression upon ethics, but that
matter was in terms remitted to the
place where it belonged, to-wit, the
e~onsciences OF the respondents.
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 1912, but that respondents
showed lack Of professional integrity
in using confidential information re
ceived in July, 1910, as a guide by
to seek for and locate a client
in August, 1910. What may have been
done in 1912 is a matter far subse-
quent to the relevant issue which
arose in 1910.
Equally unayailing is the further
defense made by respondents that as
the Garcias never objected to re
spondents appearing in case No. 202
the progress of that litigation
in 1912-1914, they are to be deemed
to have waived any objection there
to. But the question here Is not one
Of the rights of the Garcias, but as to
whether respondents have adhered to
proper professional standards. The
silence of the Garcias, while being
made the victims of un~professional
by members of the bar, cam
not mitigate the laws prohibition
upon such conduct, and cannot avail
TO render the respondents immune
the consequences of such mis-
conduct.
It is accordingly found as to the
first charge that the respondents,
Owen N. Marion and Francis e. Wood,
and each of them, is guilty as charged,
and that the conduct of each in the
respects charged was contrary to the
of the profession OF the law.
II.
Charge II concerns itself not with
he manner in which respondents OBJ
aimed the information as to the ex-
stence at Salt Lake City Of a claim
int against the Elias Garcia estate,
)ut with the accusation that respond
snts having such information, how
ever acquired, used it as a basis upon
which to advertise for a client, and
hus to stir up a protractive and ex-
litigation against the Elias
3arcia estate. The facts of this So
icitation for business are not denied.
That the conduct Of respondents in
his respect was unethical vas frank
Y admitted on the stand in the pres
mt trial by the respondent Wood.
The code of ethics of the American
sar Association and of the Bar Assoc
of New Mexico is each to the
anne effect. Such conduct is equally
denounced by the common law.
Respondents are accordingly found
under charge II.
III.
A careful consideration of charge
II, which, it will be noted, is against
he respondent Marion alone, leads to
be belief in its truth. An additional
made upon respondents re-
uest on August 6, 1915, in the case
T Garcia v. Garcia, No. 2O2, upon the
0uocffon of mhnfhar Morron