Evening journal., 1922-12-05

was any real intent 10 nrlhe, al
though the proposal and promise
might have been so regarded by the
attorney to whom they were made
While the proposal was improper
and entirely indefensible, II does not
appear that the advice Mr. Satterth-
erwalte was solicited to give was
clearly wrong. Thers was unseen
ly haste. perhaps improper motive
and the offer of excessive pay, TO
secure such advice. but It is not GER
tain that there was any criminal
intent or such gross misconduct as
would warrant disbarment. II may
be also said. It Is inconceivable TO
the Court that any member OF this
bar would attempt, or even have
the thought of bribing an attorney
Of the professional standing OF Mr.
satterthwaite.
I'VE come now TO a consideration
OF the respondents conduct in the
Dudzinski csc. which is not only very
recent. but exceedingly serious.
The money in question, amount
ing 10 about sixty-hve dollars. was
paid 10 the respondent by his client
DudzinslSl. to he applied 20 his eli
ent's debt, and he failed 20 so apply
It. The respondent says the money
was not 10 be paid over until four
months after he received II This Is
contradicted by a number of wit
nesses, as well as by the respondents
subsequent acts. but assuming his
-. - l. he,
less fact that he did not pay over.
the money when the four months
expired.
The pretended payment made
was by two checks. not his own, but
endorsed by him, and they were
found to he worthless. He says he
believed them to he good but it is
a significant fact that he did not at
tempt 10 make actual payment un-
III a warrant had been issued for his
arrest on a charge of retaining the
money he should have applied TO his
,l!ents debt. All the circumstances
the transaction strong /
y indicate that the respondent knew /
he checks were not good. They |
we're filled in by himself and sign |
d by a person living in Philadel-
'hia, whom the respondent says was
client The check for s50.50 was
ltered in amount so that the two
hecks would aggregate $500 the
UNI the respondent had received
rom Dudzinski TO be paid TO his
reditor, DuRoss. The alteration the
espondent did not attempt TO ex-
lain.
But II Is not only the fact that
he respondent had Improperly used
is clients money that impressss
he court: the manner In which the
ntire business was conducted from
he beginning 10 the end makes a
cry untavprable impression. The
lany meetings in different and un-
sual places IN procrsstination, the
the conditions imposed be
ore payment would be made. CON
ince us that the respondents CON
uct Of the business intrus ed to
i'm by a very ignorant and con.
ding client was suspicious and
lady in the extreme. II was Ger
linly very unusual. highly unpro-
'ssiOnal and taken altogether
mounted TO gross misconduct in his
1aracter Of attorney.
The one circumstance that catised ,
ie Court to hesitate to disbar the
aspondent is. that the amount he ,,
liled to'pay s very small The re-
'ntion Of such a sum seems at first
lush not TO warran Mt such a serious ,
hut principle may he
lst as important and the Intent ,
list as bad whether the amount ,
% small or large.
There is one fact. outs de the 2
record. but within our r
hcial knowledge. and disclosed by f
ie records Of another court. CON n
st ng Of the same Judges, which Il
lakes some impression on our q
inds viz: o
When indicted for the offense q
hich the main reason now urged r
" his dlsbarment--em -embezzlement n
money received in his professional n
,pacity-the respondent not only
led TO endeavor to establ sh his y
nocence. as any attorney with
'oper perceptions would have done
n interposed every dilatory plea
Ia. could possibly he raised 10 oh
ure the real issue and prevent
al on the merits.
1T is true that later he insisted u
a trial. as he does now. hut not n
1til ;he charge in the ind ctment "
as urged before the Court az o.
use for h s disbsrmeDt. when he
included he would rather stand his 81
lance before a jury than the Il
,urt. And this very fact would n
obably deprive m Of a right 20 b
ry trial IL such right existed un- r.,
n the facts of the present case.
IF an attorney, under indictment 10
r a criminal offense. seeks in every L
,y his ingenuity can discover 10 %,
cane a jury trial. he would have no
,ht 10 complain IL the Court should j.
fuse to dismiss disbarment pro- 3,
edings because the criminal charge r
ainst him. and for which he stands u
iicted, has not been determined by S,
jury. q,
But he Is not entitled under the NJ
". as a matter OF right. 10 jury =.
al. previous 10 the disposition OF =,
is case. because the offense for .r
itch his disharment is urged, was n,
mmitted in his professional capac- Il
. .,
"The law applicable 70 this ques- -,
N is clearly stated in the leading
SO Of In re Wall 107 L. s 265. Ths -.
neral rue declared in that case. -
in substance this: -
u a previous conviction should he q.
d before striking an attorney on -,
. roll for an indictable offense
nmitted by him when not acting =,
his character as an attorney: but ~