In re Treadwell
Synopsis
Application in the Supreme Court for the restoration of W. B. Treadwell to the roll of attorneys.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Court. On the second day of April, 1885, -on proceedings had therefor, an order was made and entered by this court striking the name of W. B. Treadwell, then an attorney of this court, from the roll of attorneys and counselors, and prohibiting him from practicing as such attorney, upon the ground that said Treadwell had, in his capacity as such attorney, been guilty of misappropriating moneys intrusted to his keeping.
An application is now made in behalf of Mr. Tread-well by E. B. and George H. Mastick, attorneys of this court in ■ good standing, asking that he be restored to said roll of attorneys. The sworn petition shows that [25]continuously since the first day of January, 1887, Mr. Treadwell has been in the employment, as general assistant and confidential managing clerk, of the law firm composed of these petitioners and the late W. C. Belcher, down to the death of Mr. Belcher in September, 1895, and that since said date said Tread-well has continued in the employment of petitioners in a like capacity. It states:
“ That during the nine years which have elapsed since said Treadwell entered their employment, as aforesaid, petitioners have reposed in him the most implicit confidence, and have given him the management of matters of great importance, requiring the utmost care, secrecy, and good faith, and have intrusted to him large sums of money and property belonging to themselves and others. That their confidence in him has never been betrayed, and that they have always found him to be careful and trustworthy in the highest degree.'
“ That during all of said time petitioners have had frequent social intercourse with said Treadwell and members of his family, and can and do truly certify to his good character as a husband and parent, and as a moral and upright citizen of this community.
“ That the conduct of said Treadwell since the said first day of January, 1887, has ever been such as to inspire confidence in his character, honor, and integrity, and to warrant this application to the court in his behalf, and it is their firm belief and opinion that he can be safely admitted to practice again, and intrusted with the affairs of clients.”
It is further shown that the money, the appropriation of which caused the disbarment of Treadwell, has been by him fully refunded and repaid to those entitled thereto.
The petition is accompanied by personal letters and recommendations addressed to the court from a large number of the prominent attorneys and law firms practicing before this court, all of the highest professional standing, many of the judges and ex-judges of our su
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)