Case Name: STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS v. JOHN I. DAVIS
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1909-05-28
Citations: 108 Minn. 87
Docket Number: Nos. 15,885—(41)
Parties: STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS v. JOHN I. DAVIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 108
Pages: 87–89

Head Matter:
STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS v. JOHN I. DAVIS.
May 28, 1909.
Nos. 15,885—(41).
Accusation by the state board of law examiners against John I. Davis for wilful misconduct in his profession, and petition that he be removed from his office as attorney at law. The accusation charged that:
1. The accused, knowing that Anna Eaietk was not liable on an account which one A. D. Sehendel held against her husband and having strong reasons to believe that the accused would' be employed to defend in case suit was brought against her, he having successfully prosecuted a suit for her involving the same item, entered into an agreement with. Schendel to assist him for $25 to get judgment against her; that in performance of this agreement, he advised Mr. Schendel to sue both Anna Eaietk and her husband, which was done; the accused, without informing the defendants that he was employed against them, as their attorney advised and drew answers for them, after entry of judgment by default prevented an appeal by falsely informing them that the time for appeal had passed, and received the $25 agreed on.
2. The accused, having in his hands for collection a claim of $10.95, after collecting the claim in full wrote to the sender of the claim that the .debtor had offered $6 in settlement and advised the acceptance of the offer.
3. The accused having, for collection, a judgment recovered by E. Schandera against William Schaefer, amounting with interest to over $400, informed Schandera’s attorney that he, the accused, could get the judgment for $75 and proposed that the debtor be induced to pay $200 and the excess over $75 be divided between the accused and the debtor’s attorney. To carry out this scheme, the accused represented to his client that $75 was all that could be obtained and induced his client to satisfy the judgment for that sum, while accused was paid $137.50.
At the time of hearing, the accused appeared in person and entered an oral plea of not guilty. The court appointed a referee to take testimony, and the evidence was thereafter reported to this court.
E. Southworth, for petitioner.
Thomas E. Davis, James B. Ormond and Virgil B. Seward, for respondent.
Exported in 121 N. W. 1133.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Application of the State Board of Examiners in Law for the removal of John I. Davis from his office as attorney and counselor in the courts of this state. Specific charges of misconduct were duly made, to which respondent pleaded not guilty. A reference was held, and the testimony taken and returned, upon which the matter was submitted by the respective parties. After a full and careful consideration of the record, and the arguments of counsel, we find the respondent guilty of misconduct in his profession, and, though not of a nature to justify permanent disbarment, of a character calling for discipline, and which cannot receive the approval of the court.
It is therefore ordered that respondent, John I. Davis, be suspended from practicing in any of the courts of the state for the period of six months.