Case Name: In re BORIE et al.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1928-05-07
Citations: 166 La. 855
Docket Number: No. 29138
Parties: In re BORIE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 166
Pages: 855–859

Head Matter:
(118 So. 45)
No. 29138.
In re BORIE et al.
May 7, 1928.
On the Merits, July 2, 1928.
Charles F. Fletchinger, Nicholas Callan, and John R. Upton, all of New Orleans, for Disbarment Committee of Supreme Court.
Edgar M. Cahn, William F. Conkerton,. and Leon S. Cahn, all of New Orleans, for respondent Borie.
Emerson Bentley, of New Orleans, for respondent Dowling.

Opinion:
On Exception of No Cause of Action.
ST. PAUL, J.
The disbarment committee of the court seeks the disbarment of Fabian W. Borie and Richard A. Dowling, members of the bar, alleging, in substance, that said Borie aided and abetted certain other persons in an endeavor to compound a prosecution for felony then pending before the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans, and that said Dowling lent him his assistance in doing so.
Both defendants have filed an exception of no cause of action.
The said Borie, however, has abandoned and waived his said exception and asked for a speedy trial.
The said Dowling insists upon his exceptipn.
His exception is based on the assumption that the committee charges only that it "believes" that said Dowling has done the things set forth in the complaint. This, however, is an erroneous conclusion as to the meaning of the complaint. The words of the complaint are, "your committee believes and so alleges," etc. And defendant assumes that this means merely that the committee believes and therefore alleges its belief in the facts set forth, whereas the evident meaning of the-words is that the committee believes and therefore alleges that the facts are as • set forth in the complaint; in other words, the committee charges the facts, upon information and belief, and that suffices.
Again, it is alleged in the complaint that at the time of said occurrence said Dowling was an assistant district attorney in and for the parish of Orleans; and it is assumed that this is an attempt to inquire into his official conduct as such, in a manner not authorized by law.
We do not think so; the official conduct of public officers is not subject to review in disbarment proceedings, for what they do officially is not done in the capacity of attorneys at law, but by virtue of their office. State v. Standard Oil Co., 164 La. 334, 113 So. 867; State ex rel. Duffel v. Marks, 30 La. Ann. 97, 113.
We take it, then, that the only purpose of the committee in referring to the fact that Dowling was an assistant district attorney at the time, was merely to aggravate the nature of his alleged misconduct as an attorney at law; for certainly it is only in that respect that this matter is at all material here, especially as Dowling is no longer in office, having resigned.
The exceptions of no cause of action are therefore overruled.