Case Name: In the matter of Daniel J. McCarthy
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1879-10-29
Citations: 42 Mich. 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the matter of Daniel J. McCarthy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
In the matter of Daniel J. McCarthy.
Disbarring of attorney.
Conviction of such crimes as the law. regards as infamous is sufficient ground for disbarring an attorney.
A bar association is not a recognized body, as such, in proceedings to disbar an attorney, and cannot control the prosecution; the proceeding is in the interest of public justice, and the Supreme Court will examine into and' act on it as in other cases involving the position of its attorneys.
Proceedings to disbar- an attorney, brought by a committee appointed by the Bar Association of Grand Bap-ids. The respondent was charged with having been convicted on an information for obtaining money under false pretenses, to which information he pleaded guilty. It satisfactorily appeared to the court by the record of conviction to be true, and he was accordingly disbarred.
Submitted October 28.
Decided October 29.

Opinion:
Upon the hearing, some members of the Bar Association of Grand Bapids appeared in support of the prosecution, and some controversy arose between the respondent and those gentlemen .coneernirig their procedure and certain difficulties which had arisen in that city which he claimed were open to complaint on his part.
The Court, however, intimated that the proceeding was one whie'h had nothing- to do with that Association and was not under its management, and must be treated as purely in the interests of public justice, and declined to allow any controversy except as to the merits.
The charges being supported by record evidence of conviction of felony on a plea of guilty, the identity of the prisoner with respondent was established by the respondent himself, who averred that .the plea was induced by undue urgency of the prosecuting attorney.
He also claimed it did not appear he was admitted to the bar before the conviction. The contrary, however, appeared by the records of this Court.
After hearing respondent, the Court held that a conviction of a felony, which was infamous, made respondent unfit for membership of the bar; and disregarding some minor charges which had been included in the charges, —the main charge being made out, — the name of respondent was for this stricken from the roll.