Fischer v. State Bar

6 Cal.2d 671 (1936) SIDNEY FISCHER, Petitioner,

v.

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

L. A. No. 15593. Supreme Court of California. In Bank.

June 30, 1936. Sidney Fischer, in pro. per., for Petitioner.

Philbrick McCoy for Respondent.

THE COURT.

This is a review of an order of disbarment for perjury and subornation of perjury. In 1931 Anna Hirsch sued Barrett Sigel for personal injuries and recovered judgment for $6,500. Petitioner was attorney for Sigel. The plaintiff was unable to satisfy the judgment, and filed an action against Sigel and others, including petitioner, to set aside alleged fraudulent conveyances. The case was dismissed as to petitioner, and judgment for plaintiff was given against other defendants. The testimony of [672] petitioner and of the defendant Leo Lewis before the superior court referee and at the trial was the basis for the present proceeding. It appears that shortly after the accident, Sigel transferred to Leo Lewis his business, worth about $8,000, and certain real property. Lewis immediately transferred them to a corporation organized by petitioner, with Sigel remaining in charge. The court in the fraudulent conveyance action found that these transfers were without consideration.

Petitioner's explanation of the transaction was that there was an antecedent debt owing from Sigel to Lewis, and that Lewis also paid $4,000 in cash, which he handed to petitioner, who kept it in his safe deposit box for several months, during which Sigel withdrew sums from time to time until the money was all paid. He stated that the receipt was thereafter destroyed. Before the administrative committee Lewis testified that he never put up any money, that there never was any such transaction as was described, and that he never took possession of the business or the other property. Lewis further declared that petitioner told him he might testify to the purported transaction before the court referee because it was not a regular court, and that after the fraudulent conveyance action was filed, petitioner told him that he was already in the illegal transaction and that he had better sign the answer which set up the purported transfers.