Court Opinion

ID: 9527430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:30:32.484257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:47.385587
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
HARWOOD, Justice.
In brief on application for rehearing counsel has to our satisfaction demonstrated that the law letter which we stated had been sent out on stationery of Alonzo and Alonzo was in fact sent out, during the period specified in Charge 1, on stationery of Reynolds T. Alonzo, from the office of Mobile Adjustment Service, and bore the signature of Reynolds T. Alonzo only. *191During the time the stationery bearing the letterhead of Alonzo and Alonzo was used, the law letters were mailed from the office of Alonzo and Alonzo, and not from the office of Mobile Adjustment Service.
This being so, we are in accord with the contention of counsel for the respondent below that the evidence is insufficient to support the resolution of guilty under Specification 1.
This does not, however, in anywise necessitate a reversal of the affirmance of the resolutions of guilty of Specifications 2 and 3.
In fact the offense charged in Specification 2, that is, guilty of violation of Rule 33 section A by being guilty of deceit or willful misconduct, was by far the most serious offense charged and established.
If guilty of this offense, it would be axiomatic that petitioner would be guilty of violation of Rule 36 section A, that is, of conduct unbecoming an attorney at law. Ex Parte Newton, 265 Ala. 650, 93 So.2d 164.
Disbarment proceedings are basically an inquiry into the conduct of an attorney to determine whether action should be taken by the Bar Association acting through its Board of Commissioners, or in other situations, by a court, to protect the public or the courts. In re McKay, 280 Ala. 174, 191 So.2d 1. Such proceedings are neither civil nor criminal, but are sui generis. Ex parte Messer, 228 Ala. 16, 152 So. 244; Ex parte McKay, supra.
As to our functions on review in disciplinary proceedings, we observed in Ex parte Newton, 265 Ala. 650, 93 So.2d 164:
“In reviewing disbarment proceedings before the Board of Commissioners, 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 and conclusions of the Commissioners or may alter or modify them. Ex parte Thompson, 228 Ala. 113, 152 So. 229, 107 A.L.R. 671; Ex parte Grace, 244 Ala. 267, 13 So.2d 178; Ex parte Cooke, 263 Ala. 481, 83 So.2d 195; Alabama Code of 1940, Title 46 § 25.”
Having concluded on this rehearing that the evidence was insufficient to support Specification 1, our opinion is hereby modified to the extent of holding that Specification 1 was not supported by the evidence.
We adhere to our views as to the affirmance of the Resolutions finding the petitioner guilty under Charges 2 and 3. In fact counsel for petitioner has not in brief raised any contention as to our approval or affirmance of Charges 2 and 3.
Opinion modified; application overruled.
All the Justices concur, except COLEMAN, J.