Tatlow v. State Bar

THOMPSON, J.

The petitioner was required by a notice dated August 7, 1934, to show cause why he should not be disciplined for unprofessional conduct. Two charges were contained in the notice. The first related to certain transactions between petitioner and a client with respect to protecting the interests of the latter in real property subject to a deed of trust given by the client to assure the support of her grandchild by her son. For reasons to be now stated it is unnecessary for us to detail the facts or the evidence bearing upon this count. The Board of Governors at its hearing after recommendation by the local administrative committee advised petitioner that so far as it was concerned he could confine himself to the second charge. And respondent’s brief concedes, in effect, that its recommendation must stand or fall on the second charge. We have read the transcript and are inclined to the same view.

We may, therefore, turn to the charges contained in paragraph II of the notice. It is there stated, in effect, that petitioner was appointed guardian of the estate of Josef St. Clair Houston, an incompetent person, on August 15, 1927; that there came into his hands as such guardian certain sums of money which he had commingled with his own; that without any order of court therefor he had invested it, along with his own funds, with the Utah National Land Company in Utah, which concern was affiliated with the Pacific Investment Company, in which latter concern the petitioner was financially interested; that the investment was not profitable and that upon the final accounting, after removal of petitioner from the guardianship, the petitioner was found to be owing the estate $876, which has never been paid. It was also alleged that petitioner did not report the truth in the accounts prepared and submitted by him as guardian to the court for its approval. The local committee found the charges to be true

[522]

and recommended that petitioner be suspended for a period of three years, which findings and recommendation were adopted by the Board of Bar Governors. In response to a writ of review we have the record before us for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence to warrant disciplinary action.

The testimony reveals a most unusual manner of dealing with the funds of the ward. Shortly after appointment and about November, 1927, the sum of $1252 was received by the guardian from the veterans’ bureau, as accrued compensation, which petitioner deposited in a bank in the name of the incompetent by himself as guardian. Thereafter he received $80 per month, most of which he used to.pay the ward’s expenses. At this time petitioner had some government Bonds of about the value of $1200 which he put into a manila envelope marked “Property of the estate of Josef St. Clair Houston”, and then put the envelope into the estate’s folio. In 1930 the petitioner says he made his first report and simply declared that the funds were “held in cash and/or government bonds”. Also about the same time he noticed that the bonds theretofore put into the envelope were to mature shortly, for which reason he substituted for them Liberty bonds with an accrued value of approximately $1234. And now we quote the exact language of petitioner: “ That brought about a condition where I felt that I might deal with the money that was in the bank as I pleased, the same as if it was my own money, and to some extent I did that during that time. If I needed $500 or $100, whatever it was, in actual cash, I took it, because I had the Liberty bonds to that extent.” Some time in 1930 or 1931 (the exact date is immaterial) he loaned the Utah National Land Company somewhere between $1,000 and $2,600. According to his testimony, he was not certain any of it was estate money, and that he first loaned nearly $1,000. According to the testimony of another witness, the petitioner said that in 1930 he sold $1400 worth of bonds and had taken $200 out of the guardianship account and $1,000 of his own money and loaned it all to the Pacific Investment Company, taking as security an assignment of a mortgage held by a Japanese, of whose name he was uncertain. This witness further testified that petitioner further admitted he had secured no title search, and had not recorded the assignment of the mortgage. The