Opinion ID: 1673573
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: schaffert divorce

Text: 1. John J. Barta, a Massachusetts attorney, asked appellant in a telephone conversation about getting a divorce for his client, Mrs. Schaffert, and appellant said he would send Barta an answer and waiver. 2. Appellant told Barta the attorney's fee would be $600.00. 3. Barta received a letter from appellant which recited as follows: Dear John: I am enclosing an Answer and Waiver which should be signed by the proposed respondent. You need not have this Answer and Waiver notarized, but I would appreciate it if you would witness the waiver yourself in your office. When this is signed you may get in touch with me and let me know when the party can appear in my office. It was certainly a pleasure hearing from you, and if I can be of further service to you, please call me. Yours very truly R. B. Jones 4. Barta returned the executed answer and waiver to the appellant with a check in the sum of $600.00 payable to the appellant accompanied by a letter of transmittal dated February 20, 1969. 5. Barta had another telephone conversation with the appellant and set up the appointment for this client. 6. In that telephone conversation, the appellant told Barta that the client would not have to remain in Alabama more than one day. 7. Mrs. Schaffert went to the office of the appellant in Birmingham and returned to her home in Massachusetts the same day. 8. Upon arrival at appellant's office, a secretary took Mrs. Schaffert to another office in the building where a discussion was had with someone else and a secretary, and Mrs. Schaffert signed some papers. 9. In neither of the above telephone conversations did the appellant mention any attorney other than himself as the attorney to handle and proposed divorce. 10. The answer and waiver and $600.00 check were received in the office of the appellant and delivered to Annette Cox. 11. Annette Cox requested appellant to cash the check and bring her the cash. The appellant complied with this request. 12. Mrs. Schaffert received in the mail a certified copy of a divorce decree. Title 46, § 25, Code 1940, provides in part that this court may review the action of the board of commissioners, and may, on its own motion, and without the certification of any record, inquire into the merits of the case and take any action agreeable to their judgment. In reviewing disbarment or suspension proceedings, this court possesses inherent power as well as specific statutory authority to take such action as is agreeable to our judgment; and we may adopt the findings of the commissioners or may alter or modify them. Ex parte Newton, 265 Ala. 650, 93 So.2d 164; Ex parte Cooke, 263 Ala. 481, 83 So.2d 195; Ex parte Grace, 244 Ala. 267, 13 So.2d 178; Ex parte Thompson, 228 Ala. 113, 152 So. 229, 107 A.L.R. 671; Tit. 46, § 25. Pursuant to the above authorities, I do not care to have any judge, attorney or layman in Alabama to think that. I would hold, under these facts that appellant did not aid in the filing or prosecution of any divorce suit in a court in Alabama with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that neither party to such cause was a bona fide resident of the State of Alabama, especially where, as here, appellant admitted that he knew that the parties in both of these cases were not residents of Alabama. In this day when technicalities are to be avoided, it appears that the punishment proposed by the Board of Commissioners of the Alabama State Bar is set aside on the technicality that the attorney-client relationship did not exist between appellant and Mrs. Cheney in that quickie divorce and appellant and Mrs. Schaffert in her quickie divorce. Appellant is a qualified attorney and he knew he was aiding in getting a quickie divorce, and even permitted himself to be the conduit for the delivery of the $600.00 fee in each case so that the signature of a qualified lawyer would appear on the check as endorser rather than a disbarred attorney who had no right to practice law in the courts of this state. I respectfully dissent. COLEMAN, HARWOOD and BLOODWORTH, JJ., concur.