Evening journal., 1922-12-05
ADAIR, LAWYER
IS SUSPENDED
Court Revokes His Right
to Practice for Six
Months
NO DISBARMENT ON
EVIDENCE OFFERED

New Castle County Bar Association
since 1895. was suspended from prac.
ticing law for a period OF six months
In an opinion handed down by Chief
Jusice Pennewill and Judges Rice
and Rodney, In Superior Court yes
terday afternoon.
The suspendlng Of Mr. Adair was
done on disbarment proceedings in
situated against him several months
ago. He was accused OF unprofes-
sional conduct in dealings with
clients.
Mr. Ada'r was admitted to tn.
practice of law in the state in 1895.
He was given hearing on a rule re-
auirlnE him to show cause why he
should not be disbarred from the
New Castle County Bar Association
several months ago. Robert II. Rich
ards and David J. Reinhardt ap-
peared for the Bar Association, and
Robert G.. Harman represented Mr.
! Adsir
Chief Justice Pennewill read tho
( opinion Of the court as follows;
I'm the above case, in pursuance
Of a resolution Of the Bar Associs-
ton Of New Castle county. and the
recommendation OF the Board Of
Censors OF the bar Of said county
a rule was issued and laid upon the
said Robert Adair. an attorney Of
this Court 20 appear before the
Court and show cause why his name
should not be stricken from the roll
-. - Ife1,.s -rrA q nd
prohibited from practicing in this
Court and elsewhere in the State
Of Delaware. for the reasons and /
causes set forth in a report sub
nnitted by a committee appointed by
said Board OF Censors bearing date !
the twenty-sixth day Of April 1922 (
The reasons and causes set forth |
in said report may be summarized ;
as follows:
a. That the respondent Robert /
Adair during the month Of August .
1921, and subsequent thereto, was I
and is guilty OF gross professional .
misconduct in that he took ad- .
vantage Of the confidence reposed in
him BY John Dudzinski, his client
and in betrayal Of such confidence,
fraud upon lis client
using his position as m Anber CT
tho bar to enable him 10 accomplish
his fraudulent purpose. II is also
alleged that the respondent, In his
connection with the Dudzinski case
was and Is guilty OF the statutory
Of embezzlement as
an attorney, and Of a gross breach
Of trust in his capacity as an at
tornev at law and an officer OF the
Court.
sina 4se. .uno. . cmfwy mfwypp
80 That the respondent. In the
wear 1905. perpetrated a fraud upon
his client John Long, in taking from
him an unconditional Zee simple
OF the title TO certain
real estate when, in truth and fact,
the same was TO be held in trust and
as security for loan OF
money, that the respondent likewise
a fraud upon John Long
pv his failure 10 reconvey said real
estate TO said Long after the repay
nent OF the loan, and by conveying
uch III . TO a third person, to wit, his
mother. thus putting 1t out OF his
power 10 reconvey the same; that
he respondent in the year 1913 at
empted 10 defraud his client the
aid John Long by attempting TO OBJ
ain for himself or his mother the
um OF $S1O.69 from the sheriff OF
Iew Castle county ont OF the pro
.eede Of the sale OF said real estate
Ifter the loan secured by such CON
'eyance had been paid.
%. That the sad Robert Adair.
n the wear 1918 was and is guilty
4 grossly unprofessional and corrupt
.onduct in Offering Reuben Satterth-
waite. Junior, Esquire. who was the
eEal advisor 20 the sheriff OF New
'astle county. the sum OF fifty
ollars 20 give 20 the sheriff certain
egal advice. and as a means OF i'm
losing upon the sheriff and Of as }
isting the said Adair in defrauding d
is client John Long.
We will consider the Long and {
atterthwaite cases before taking up v
he Dudzinski case. q
1T will he observed that the al r
,ged gross misconduct on the part r
( the respondent in connection with e
he Long and Satterthwaite cases oc- a
urred at least nine years ago. II Is II
leo material fact that such mis- a
onduct IN ne Long case was dis
losed in certain proceedings In the u
curt Of Chancery for this county. q
nd ALI the facts were known 20 the Z
at the time as appears v
rom the records Of the Court Of c
hsncery and oral testimony in CON II
ection Herewith.
THE misconduct which consisted q
I an alleged attempt to bribe Mr. c
atterthwaite, grew out OF the Long &
,se. and was closely re'sted to said is
hancery proceedings.
we will not discuss AT any length h
ie allegations Of misconduct on the Il
art or the respondent in relation TO c'
le Long and Sa;terthwaite cases be- II
luse they are so remote in time that a
ny such misconduct could Justify r'
Is disharment IL no O'her and later n
Ilsconduct is shown This we think h
not denied. hut 81 Is insisted that n
ich misconduct. however remote. 70
iou,d be considered because the
resumption. from lapse OF time. OF q
ihsequent professional integrity W
nd honorable practice is rehutted
y the proof of later DELINQUENCY. dl
lch is unquestionab' the law hut HI
ie Court cannot disregard the fact. oi
nat since the respondents alleged HI
lisconduct in the Long and Sitter. CO
lwaite cases no proceedings have Is
cen taken by the bar or the Court a
loking to his disbarment. although n
y the facts have been well known
'r long time on the contrary he N
as been permitted to act as solicitor q,