Wilcox v. State Bar

SEAWELL, J.

Three separate notices to show cause why he should not be disciplined for alleged professional misconduct, based upon four specific charges, were issued and served upon the petitioner by the local administrative committee number two, returnable before the local administrative committee number nine, The State Bar of California, for hearing and decision, from which it concluded that petitioner’s acts as disclosed at said hearings involved moral turpitude and dishonesty on his part- within the meaning of subdivision 5, section 287, Code of Civil Procedure, and thereupon recommended, on April 30, 1934, that petitioner be permanently disbarred from the practice of law and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of the state of California. Said notices were served January 3, 1934, March 1, 1934, and April 3, 1934, respectively. The acts charged as professional misconduct are alleged to have been committed in the latter part of 1932 and in the early part of 1933. The board of bar governors on May 18, 1934, upon proceedings had and taken by it and upon consideration of the findings, conclusion and recommendation of said local administrative committee number nine, consolidated said proceedings and approved and adopted the findings of fact

[616]

of said local administrative committee and recommended to this court that petitioner A. S. Wilcox be disbarred from the practice of the law in the state of California.

Petitioner now comes to this court on a petition- for a writ of review, asking this court to disapprove of and annul by its order the recommendation made by said board that he be disbarred from the practice of the law in this state.

This is the second time petitioner has been before The State Bar on charges of professional misconduct. On July 21, 1931, he was suspended from the practice of the law for a period of one year on a charge of having converted the funds of a client to his own uses.

One of the charges preferred against him, L. A. No. 640, has to do with one Jennie Purnell, plaintiff in a personal injury action for the recovery of damages on account of injuries sustained in an automobile accident- which occurred in 1931. On May 4, 1932, he was substituted as the attorney for said Jennie Purnell. His fee was to be one-third of any sum he might recover from the defendant, who was insured. He sought and obtained an offer of settlement with the insurance carrier in the sum of $2,100. His client was not willing to accept said sum, but upon his advice and suggestion that she would secure $1500 net and that petitioner would take care of the doctor’s, nurse and hospital bills she consented to a.settlement upon that basis. Petitioner agreed, beyond question, that all of said bills would be taken 'care of by him. He collected said $2,100 and paid her $1500. The doctor’s bill was $195, the nurse’s bill was $100, and the hospital bill was $29. Petitioner claims that when he made the agreement to pay said bills he understood that the doctor’s bill would not exceed $50 and the nurse’s bill would not exceed that amount. The evidence is conflicting on this point, but there can be no doubt, inasmuch as petitioner was preparing the case for trial and had been negotiating a settlement, that he well knew the amount of the doctor’s and nurse’s and hospital bills. Petitioner had been attempting to have the doctor and others reduce their bills, and it- came to Mrs. Purnell’s ears that the doctor might file a suit against her. She had no doubt been quite severely injured in the accident and' was preparing to make a trip to Canada. She became uneasy about a suit being filed against her and she consulted petitioner