Evening star., 1949-11-08
Move 10 Disbar
2Lawyers Filed
In Divorce Mill
Complaint Accuses
{LemueI Oliver and
R. B. Washington

Two lawyers today faced dis
barment proceedings, based on
charges they operated what
amounted to a divorce mill" be-
tween Washington and Baltimore
in 1919.
In a seven-count complaint filed
In District Court by the court
Committee on Admissions and
Grievances, Richard B. Washing
ton and Lemuel Oliver were &C
cused of malpractice and miscon-
duct 'prejudicial to the legal pro-
fession and the administration of
justice"
Attorney Washington. with
Offices at SOB F street NV. just
around the corner from Judiciary
Square. was admitted to the Dis
trict bar in 1885. Attorney Oliver.
WHOSE practice centers about Bal
timore, where he has an Office in
the Munsey Building, was first ad-
nlitted to District practice in 1926.
Both men are middle-aged.
To Set Hearing Later.
The charges were presented to
Judge Jennings Bailey who Or
dered q hearing at a date to be
set later.
In each of the seven charges,
Attorney Washington was accused
Of advising clients in divorce cases
to make false claims they were
Maryland residents so they could
obtain quick divorces in Baltimore
courts. OF the seven specific COM
plants. six involved clients who
were District residents, while one
apparently lived in Long Island
and made arrangements by tele-
phone, according to the complaint.
After deciding on the false ad-
dresses, the clients, mostly wom-
en- involved in uncontested di-
vorces, then were taken to the
Baltimore Office, of Attorney
Oliver. where, in some cases, they
were "rehearsed" on the false in
formation. it was charged. That
completed, the clients then were
sworn to bills of divorce contain
ing the perjured testimony. which
later was repeated by clients and
their witnesses before a Balti-
more Circuit Court examiner, the
complaint further charged.
Rescinded by Court.
As a result Of four Of these per-
formances, divorces were granted,
it was said. In another case, a
decree was granted. but later
rescinded when the court learned
Of the alleged falsiflcation, which,
the complaint continued, was
brought to the baltimore courts
attention In time for II to reject
two others Of the divorce appiica-
tions.
In one case, Attorney Washing
ton furnished" one Washington
woman with a Mount Rainier, Md,
address and Cautioned" her and
her witness to remember it in sub
sequent hearings, the committee
reported. AS a result OF the per-
jured" testimony, this divorce was
granted, the charge said.
Another woman came to WASH
ington's Office asking about Flor
ida divorce, the complaint said.
He is alleged to have replied.
"Why go to Florida when I can
get you a Maryland divorce in
three months?" This District
woman, under the lawyers urg-
ing, then gave as her address For
est Glen, Md, where her brother
lived in a trailer" it was charged.
After q rehearsal of the testimony
in Attorney divers Office, court
appearances were made and the
divorce granted, according to the
complaint. ..-
Specific Charges Awaited.
In still another case. it was
charged, the husband of third
woman seeking a divorce went so
far as to supply" a witness who
Joined in swearing to a false ad-
dress for the wife in Chevy Chase.
Md.
The investigation and request
for disbarment of the two law
yers was made by Attorneys Ed
mund L. Jones, Austin F. Garfield
and Francis N. Hill, jr., Grievance
Committee members.
It was understood the matter
originally was brought to the
committees attention by the Bar
Association of Baltimore City.
Attorney Washington said to-
day he will have no statement to
make until he learns from the
court the specific nature of the
charges.
He recalled, however, that at a
Grievance Committee hearing
about 10 months ago, he thought
we gave perfectly satisfactory ex.