Title: In Re Steward
Citation: 391 P.2d 911, 96 Ariz. 49
Docket Number: 8047
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: April 24, 1964

96 Ariz. 49 (1964) 391 P.2d 911 In the Matter of a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Robert R. STEWARD, Respondent. No. 8047. Supreme Court of Arizona, En Banc. April 24, 1964. Rehearing Denied June 2, 1964. *50 Ralph J. Lester, Phoenix, for the State Bar of Arizona. Harry A. Stewart, Jr., John P. Frank, and John J. Flynn, Phoenix, for respondent. UDALL, Chief Justice. This is a disbarment proceeding. A complaint against Robert R. Steward, of Phoenix, Arizona, accusing him of unprofessional conduct as a member of the Bar of this State was filed with the Local Administrative Committee, for District No. Four, of the State Bar. This complaint was heard by the Administrative Committee. Respondent was present, represented by counsel, testified and offered evidence; the proceedings were reported by a reporter and a transcript of his notes is a part of the files. A majority of the Committee found respondent guilty of deceitful conduct towards clients, a lack of understanding of professional standards, and misappropriation of funds. The Committee recommended reprimand and disbarment. Respondent petitioned for resignation from the State Bar. A complete record of these proceedings, together with the Committee's recommendation, was lodged with the Board of Governors of the State Bar, as required by Rule 35 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S., and the Board of Governors took additional evidence with regard to respondent's mental condition and, following respondent's petition to resign from the State Bar, sent the complete record to this Court with a recommendation that the resignation be accepted. The findings and recommendations of the Committee are as follows: The Board of Governors of the Bar filed its recommendations with this Court on August 23, 1963. Respondent was notified of this action but has not requested to be allowed to file briefs or make oral argument. Rule 37 Rules of the Supreme Court states: The recommendation of the Board that the respondent's resignation be accepted was based on a finding of fact that The finding of the Board was based on the testimony of one psychiatrist who examined and treated the respondent a number of years after the incidents involved. In none of his testimony was there any direct testimony that respondent's emotional condition was the cause of the acts with which he was charged. At one point the doctor testified: The equivocal testimony of the doctor neither proves nor disproves the respondent's mental condition at the time of the transactions recited herein. We have read the transcript of the testimony before the Board and are of the opinion that it does not support a finding that respondent was mentally incompetent at the time of the acts complained of. Consequently we do not accept the recommendation of the Board that respondent be allowed to resign from the State Bar. We have carefully considered the record and the findings of fact. The conduct of respondent here is unconscionable, as we said in In re Graham, 58 Ariz. 192, 202, 203, 118 P.2d 1093, 1097: LOCKWOOD, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, BERNSTEIN and JENNINGS, JJ., concur.