Kepler v. State Bar

THE COURT.

Petitioner seeks by this application to be reinstated to practice as an attorney at law, notwithstanding the denial to him of the favorable recommendation of the Board of Bar Governors of the state of California. On February 24, 1925, petitioner was disbarred from the further practice of law by a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of San Joaquin. Said judgment was based upon three counts: “That the defendant, Leland S. Kepler, has committed acts involving moral turpitude and dishonesty, (1) In assuming a position adverse to the interest of his client, C. E. Jubb, (2) In claiming a transfer in good faith of a promissory note to R. H. Kepler, knowing the same to be not in good faith, and that the said R. H. Kepler was not the owner and holder thereof in due course, and (3) By deceiving an attorney and officer of the court and thereby

[54]

depriving the said attorney and his clients of a proper and legal defense to the note above set forth.” No appeal was taken from said judgment. Thereafter, petitioner removed to Orange County, and in the next year filed a petition for reinstatement with the District Court of Appeal for the Second District, Division Two, which was denied by said court for the reason stated in the opinion that said application contained a statement which was not true.

(In re Kepler,

79 Cal. App. 639 [250 Pac. 701].) Subsequent to his disbarment petitioner appeared as assignee of accounts for collection under the belief that the decision in the case of

O’Connell

v.

Judnich,

71 Cal. App. 386 [235 Pac. 664], authorized him to so appear. In the ease of

Koepple

v.

Morrison,

84 Cal. App. 137 [257 Pac. 590], which he asserts was appealed for the sole purpose of determining whether or not he was entitled to appear in such actions, the right to appear was denied, and since the date of said decision, according to his petition, he has absolutely refrained from the practice of law. It appears that the wife of petitioner, B. H. Kepler, is the sole owner of the Koepple’s Collection Agency of Santa Ana, California, and petitioner has worked in her office as an investigator at a stated salary, and in addition has been managing a ranch near Santa Ana owned by himself and wife. On December 3, 1930, the present petition was filed with The State Bar of California. The petition was referred by the Board of Governors to a committee to investigate and report on the fitness of the applicant for reinstatement. Hearings were held by said committee, at which hearings several 'witnesses appeared and testified on behalf of petitioner. Letters of recommendation from some ten persons were also filed with said committee. Thereafter, in a written report filed on June 9, 1931, the committee recommended to the Board of Bar Governors that petitioner be admitted to practice. The Board of Bar Governors, however, at its meeting on August 22, 1931, refused to accept the recommendation of the committee, and denied petitioner’s application for reinstatement. Petitioner thereafter sought a writ of review in this court. In denying petitioner’s application said board, after setting forth the facts of petitioner’s original disbarment and the denial of ■his application for reinstatement by the District Court of Appeal in 1926, made the following finding with reference