Court Opinion

ID: 9808473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:39:00.266572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:11.824564
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.,
dissenting: I am unable to agree with my brethren in the conclusion they have reached in this proceeding. It is brought at the instance of the Bar Association for the purpose of depriving the respondent of his right to practice law in the courts of this State. It is not criminal in its character, but purely civil; instituted, not for the purpose of punishment, but with the wholesome object of preserving the courts of justice from the official administration of a person unfit to practice in them. This is well settled in this country) as well as in Great Britain, where the courts have exclusive control over the admission as well as the disbarment of all practitioners before them. Ex parte, Wall, 107 U. S., 288; State v. Wenton, 5 Pac. Rep. (Oregon), 342; State v. Finn, 52 Pac. Rep. (Oregon), 759; In re Crum, (North Dakota), 75 N. W., 257; Scott v. State (Texas), 24 S. W., 789.
Inasmuch as the proceeding is merely civil in its nature, the statute of 1907, under which it is brought, cannot be ex post facto in its character, and no such question can arise. Watson v. Mercer, 8 Peters, U. S., 110; Ogden v. Sanders, 12 Wheat., U. S., 267.
The charges preferred against the respondent, of a most serious character, are as follows: “(2) That the said I. N. Ebbs, on 4 December, 1903, was convicted in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana upon a certain bill of indictment, a copy of which is attached hereto, and that the said Ebbs was duly sentenced by the said court to a term of imprisonment, after the jury had returned a verdict of guilty. The crime of which he was so convicted was punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.” The offenses of which the respondent was convicted, as set out in the petition, are as follows: “Unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously uttering and publishing as true a certain receipt. ■ (3) Unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly transmitting and presenting to the General Land Office of the Department of the Interior of the United States a certain false *59receipt. (4) Knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously transmitting and presenting for approval and payment a certain account and claim upon and against the Government of the United States. (5) Unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously, and with intent to defraud the United States, transmitting and presenting to the General Land Office a certain false and fraudulent voucher. (6) Knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously, and with intent to defraud the United States, presenting a certain false claim in violation of sections 5421 and 5438 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.”
The record shows that respondent was duly tried by a jury at December Term, 1903, of the Circuit Court of the United States, at New Orleans, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine and to be imprisoned, and that he was imprisoned accordingly.
The respondent, by his demurrer to the petition, admits the truth of the facts stated therein; that is, he admits that he has been convicted by a jury of the offenses charged, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary.
It is useless to discuss the character of the crimes of which the respondent has been convicted. It will be admitted by all that one who has committed them should not be permitted to practice in the courts of the State. I concur with my brethren that our courts have power to investigate such charges and, if they are sustained, to disbar the respondent. But I differ from them in holding that any investigation is now necessary. The learned judge who heard this matter in the court below, when he overruled the respondent’s demurrer, gave him leave to file an answer, which he declined to do. The respondent should have availed himself of his right to answer anfl deny the truth of the allegations contained in the bill of indictment, which is made a part of the petition, and should have insisted that the Court here investigate the truth of the charges preferred against him. If the judge declined to give him a trial the respondent could have appealed. Instead of doing that, when his demurrer was overruled he stands mute and refuses to answer. What honorable attorney, fit to practice in our courts, would stand silent in the presence of such accusations? He should have courted investigation. His refusal to answer and deny the truth of the accu*60sations in the bill, and to demand a trial upon them here, is sufficient to justify bis disbarment. "Wbat else could the judge do but enter the judgment tbat was rendered? Tbis Court lias beld, as I understand the opinion, tbat the respondent cannot be disbarred under section 1, subsection A, of the statute, because the acts committed are not punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary by the laws, of tbis State, and, secondly, because the respondent has 'not been convicted in tbis State of a crime punishable in its penitentiary. I think the construction placed upon the act is too narrow entirely, and contrary to its spirit and purpose. Tbe statute declares: “Section 1. Tbat an attorney at law must be disbarred and removed for the following causes: (a) Upon being convicted of a crime punishable'by' imprisonment in the penitentiary.”
It must be conceded tbat those words are broad enough to cover a conviction and sentence' to the penitentiary under the laws of any State or of the United States. Tbat being so, I know of no canon of construction which requires a more restricted construction to be given them. One of the recognized rules of construction declares tbat, when possible, such construction should be given a statute as will effectuate the object sought to be accomplished. Tbe undoubted purpose of the act was to remove from the legal profession those of its members who are unworthy of the respect and confidence of the people. Tbe end to be attained is the protection of those’who deal with members of the bar, and not punishment.
The public welfare, as well as the respect due the profession of the law, requires tbat its practitioners enjoy the confidence of the community. “It is not enough,” says the Supreme Court of Connecticut, “for an attorney tbat be be honest. He must be tbat and more. He must be believed to be honest. It is absolutely essential to the usefulness of an attorney tbat be be entitled to the confidence of the community wherein be practices.” County Bar v. Taylor, 60 Conn., 11.
My learned brother, Justice Walker, has written most impressively of tbe high character which should be tbe standard for our profession, and of tbe grave consequences which must follow its debasement. I cannot hope to add anything to wbat be has so well said. In re Applicants, 143 N. C., at p. 33.
*61It must be admitted that nothing can conduce more to lower and degrade the legal profession than to permit convicted felons from other States, who have served terms in their penitentiaries, to practice law in our courts. A term in the penitentiaries of the United States or of one of our sister States tends as much to impair a man’s character and to destroy his usefulness as a legal adviser as a term in our own penal institution. Therefore I see no reason to suppose that the Legislature meant to exclude only North Carolina convicts from oúr courts. We must bear in mind that the General Assembly was not dealing with the administration of criminal law, but was declaring simply what class of persons should be excluded from a profession which is so intimately connected with the welfare of our people. I see no reason why we should not be willing to accept, under such circumstances, the judgments of the courts of other States and of the United States. In all other property matters we must extend to them the same faith and credit we give to our own. Embry v. Palmer, 107 U. S., 9. We have recognized this principle of comity in this State by holding that a witness convicted of forgery in Tennessee was incompetent in the courts of North Carolina, in a strong opinion by Chief Justice Henderson. State v. Candler, 10 N. C., 393. What reason, then, is there to suppose that the General Assembly did not intend to exclude from practice in our courts those who have been condemned as felons by the judgments and laws of other courts of our common country ? It is practically impossible to try them over again in this State or to investigate the truth of the charges, for the evidence and the witnesses are beyond our reach. We must accept the judgment of other jurisdictions, or else we must let those who carry the odor of the felon’s cell about them stand up and plead in our courts.
Again, if those only are to be excluded who commit crimes against the State of North Carolina we can never exclude those who are felons under the laws of the United States, even though they “be with treason damned.”
Under the construction given the statute, an attorney of this State might be convicted and sentenced for larceny in a distant *62State and return and pursue his profession unmolested, as it might be impossible to bring the witnesses here upon whose evidence he was convicted.
I am convinced that the language of the statute is comprehensive enough to exclude from our courts all who have been convicted in any court of the United States, or of any State thereof, of a crime which under the laws' of such jurisdiction is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, a universally recognized method of punishing criminals. I feel sure such was the intent of the. Bar Association in framing the act, and that such was the purpose of the General Assembly in enacting it, and I think it should be so construed.