Case Name: In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur Eber Sherman, Jr., an Attorney at Law
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1960-08-11
Citations: 58 Wash. 2d 1
Docket Number: No. C. D. 4687
Parties: In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur Eber Sherman, Jr., an Attorney at Law.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 1–12

Head Matter:
[No. C. D. 4687.
En Banc.
August 11, 1960.]
In the Matter of the Disciplinary Proceedings Against Arthur Eber Sherman, Jr., an Attorney at Law.
T. M. Royce, for Board of Governors.
Arthur Eber Sherman, pro se.
The Attorney General and George Neff Stevens, amici curiae.
Reported in 354 P. (2d) 888.

Opinion:
Hill, J.
The board of governors of the Washington State Bar Association has recommended the disbarment of Arthur Eber Sherman, Jr., for making false answers in his application for admission (by examination) to practice law in the state of Washington.
He falsely stated that he had never taken the bar examination in any other state and ignored the further question, "If so, were you successful?" He had, in fact, taken bar examinations twice in California and twice in Oregon; he had failed both times in California and once in Oregon.
Mr. Sherman was discharged from the United States Army Air Corps as a captain in 1946, with honors and decorations which included the "Distinguished Flying Cross with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters." He saw considerable service in China and in Burma. Included in his experiences was a harrowing incident, described in his own words,
" . . . a plane came in and crashed, was on fire. One of our men trapped in it, couldn't get him out. He was conscious begging not to die. Col. Dunning and I had to shoot him. . . . "
He was discharged with a diagnosis of "combat fatigue."
He apparently entered the University of Michigan shortly after his discharge and was admitted to the university hospital August 28, 1946, with a left inguinal hernia. The case summary included the following:
". . . During his hospitalization the patient demonstrated very associal behavior. He was very antagonistic and lacking in desire to be friendly or cooperative.
"
". . . If the patient will accept psychotherapy it is felt that pyschiatric aid would be very desirable."
He was again in the university hospital in February, 1952. The case summary included the following:
". . . The day following admission, the patient was operated upon and a small, right, indirect, inguinal hernia was found and a conventional Bássini type repair was carried out. Postoperatively, in the reaction stage from anesthesia, the patient was quite belligerent and was cursing loudly and throwing things about the'ward: Howeverrhe demonstrated no other evidences of social maladjustment until the night of the fifth day, at which time he became disturbed over not getting a laxative at the moment; he wanted, and he walked out the back door in his pajamas and robe and was discovered a few minutes later on the University campus: At this time, he was returned by the police, and on returning, seemed to be quite disturbed,' deluded, and overtly psychotic. The following day, he was seén by la Neuro-Psychiatric consultant and his findings were as follows: He demonstrated marked hostility of a diffuse nature) which did not suggest any paranoid tendency. The patient had no insight into his difficulty and also had difficulty distinguishing fact from fantasy, although' he appeared to be in good contact and was oriented. He demonstrated some impairment of conceptual thinking and abstract thinking; however, his judgment was quite good. He maintained a very defiant attitude throughout the examination. The con-; sultant felt that he was a schizophrenic of the simple type, but felt that nothing could be done about this immediately, inasmuch as the patient vehemently refused any kind of psychiatric treatment. It was suggested that he be com-' mitted to a Veterans Administration Psychiatric Hospital in Battle Creek, but this seemed impractical inasmuch as. his parents were in Massachusetts and his wife in Central America. The consultant did not feel that he was excessively dangerous, inasmuch as the paranoid ideation seemed to be' minimal. The patient caused no further difficulty in the ward routine and was discharged on the sixth postoperative day with the wound well healed.
"Recommendations: The patient should be observed for further change in his psychiatric condition and if he does become paranoid, it would seem highly advisable to carry out commitment at that time."
Because of this background of wartime experience ánd hospital records, our own examination of the record in this proceeding, and the actions, reactions and attitudes of Mr. Sherman as established therefrom — -plus his personal appearance before this court in this proceeding as his own attorney — we are deeply concerned with whether the need is not for psychiatric care rather than disciplinary action.
Mr. Sherman seems to recognize no great impropriety in falsifying his answers to the question concerning whether he had taken the bar examination in any other state, but justifies it on the basis that it was necessary to protect him from- persecution stemming from Oregon, where he had been denied admission to the bar in 1953. We have no doubt that, in his own mind, the justification is complete and ample. We, of course, do not agree, but it seems to us to suggest a type of mental illness involving a persecution complex rather than- wilful perjury.
Comparatively recently, and after his admission to the bar of this state, he filed two petitions for rehearing with the supreme court of Oregon and wrote a letter to a trial judge in Oregon (copies of which were mailed to other parties), all of which were contemptuous.and insulting in character. He was a party to the litigation in each instance, and had appeared pro se. Patently, these were a violation of his oath to "maintain the respect due to the courts, of justice and judicial officers," taken on his admission to the bar in his state, and of the first Canon of Professional Ethics, i.e.,
"The duty of the lawyer to the courts. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are peculiarly entitled to receive the support of the bar against unjust criticism and clamor. Whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint of a judicial officer, it is the right and duty of the lawyer to submit his grievances to the proper authorities. In such cases, but not otherwise, such charges should be encouraged and the person making them should be protected. [Adopted Nov. 22, 1950, effective Jan. 2, 1951.]" RCW Vol. O.
Mr. Sherman's justification is that he was only a layman in Oregon, together with his belief that he cannot secure justice in the courts of that state. A lawyer's obligation and the Canons of Professional Ethics do not cease to operate at the state line. Unless the statements by Mr. Sherman — derogatory to the Oregon courts and judges— are the result of mental illness, they would, in themselves, merit disbarment rather than the reprimand recommended by the board of governors.
We decline, on the present record, to disbar Mr. Sherman or to reprimand him — not because we condone his actions, but because, as heretofore indicated, we are concerned with whether he is mentally responsible for what he has done.
The logic of the situation would seem to dictate the conclusion that, if he was mentally responsible for the conduct we have outlined, he should be disbarred; and, if he was not mentally responsible, he should not be permitted to practice law.
However, the flaw in the logic is that he may have been mentally irresponsible for the falsification of his application for admission to practice law in this state in December, 1956, and in November, 1957, when he filed the objectionable petitions for rehearing with the supreme court of Oregon, and in February, 1958, when he sent his contemptuous letter to a circuit judge in Oregon, and, yet, have sufficiently improved in the almost two and one-half years intervening to be able to capably and competently represent his clients. Supporting the latter possibility is Mr. Sherman's claimed successful practice, since September, 1958, in Pacific County. We are advised of no complaint of any character made against him during that period.
Mr. Sherman has offered to have a psychiatric examination made. It is our view that this matter should be remanded to the board of governors of the Washington State Bar Association for further investigation along the lines suggested by the dissenting member of the trial committee.
We would make clear that we are satisfied that a case has been made against Mr. Sherman, warranting a refusal to permit him to further practice law in this state unless he can establish his mental irresponsibility at the time of the offenses charged. The burden of proof is upon him.
If he establishes such mental irresponsibility, the burden is then upon him to establish his present capability to practice law.
Without in any way prejudging what the further hearings may disclose, we would suggest consideration of whether the procedure for offenses committed before admission to the bar, such as the falsification of answers to an application for admission, might not more properly be a motion to vacate the order of admission to practice rather than disbarment.
Remanded to the board of governors of the Washington State Bar Association for further investigation and action.
Finley, Rosellini, Foster, and Hunter, JJ., concur.