« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
(311 II. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) distinct as to cause a contrariety of respondent's conduct was dishonopinion as to whether acts were or orable or unprofessional is the claim were not ethical. It seems, however, that he did not aid in guarding as used by the commissioner, “un against the admission to the profesethical" is substantially synonymous sion of candidates "unfit or unqualiwith unprofessional, for there was fied because deficient in either moral nothing immoral in conducting the character or education” (Canon 29, quiz courses by respondent. What, Canons of Ethics adopted by the then, characterizes it as unprofes- American and Illinois State Bar sional? It should be borne in mind Associations), and that respondent's that the quiz courses were inde conduct of quiz courses involved dispendent of, and had no connection "loyalty to the law (Canon 32). with, respondent's relations with his What respondent did had no connecclients. His classes were not clients tion with the moral fitness of the who sought his services in the trans- applicant. That is required to be action of business, and he did not determined by a committee on charsolicit clients to become members of acter and fitness appointed by this his classes. He did not pretend to court, and respondent had no conaid members of his classes in their nection with that committee, and preliminary qualification to enable never did anything to influence its them to take the examination. They actions. The charge that respondwere composed of men who had al- ent violated Canon 29 in not aiding ready qualified by preliminary edu- to protect the bar against the admiscation and by study of the law to be sion of applicants deficient in educaadmitted by the board to take the tion we do not think is sustained by examination for admission to the the commissioner's report. As we bar. For ten weeks he conducted a have said, the respondent did not quiz course of instruction or review aid his students in meeting the reof the subjects which the students quirements of Rule 39 either as to had already studied in their law preliminary education of law study, course, and upon which the rule with the exception, above noticed, as of this court required them to be to students who had failed to pass examined, to better prepare them the examination. His classes were for the examination. Respondent composed only of students who had should not and must not advertise previously completed the requireor represent that he can or will fur- ment of the rule to be admitted to nish his students with a question or take the examination. questions which will be used by the No doubt respondent represented board of law examiners in the ex- to his students that such a course as amination of students for admission he conducted would be of great aid to the bar. Such advertising is in enabling them to successfully pass wholly improper. The commission- the examination, and there is no er reports the work respondent was doubt that was the object of the studoing was of the same nature as dents in taking the ten weeks' that carried on by several other per- course under his tuition. Does that sons in Chicago, some of whom are render respondent's conduct unproattorneys at law. What we have fessional to such an extent as to said on the subject of what conduct justify revoking his license to pracis unethical is equally applicable to tise law? It does not appear bewhat is or what is not unprofession- fore this time to have been so real. Where the conduct of an attor- garded by the bar or the courts. ney is such that all right-minded The commissioner reports that people would conclude that it is not other attorneys at law in Chicago honorable, it must necessarily be un- are doing the same kind of work, professional.
and, after a somewhat extensive The grounds upon which counsel investigation, we have been unable for relator base their argument that to find a decision of any court
upon the question. No one would not claimed respondent's conduct contend that a lawyer should be dis- has been in any sense dishonest, or barred who, instead of opening an immoral, or injurious to the public, office and practising his profession, except, as stated, that he has failed devoted all his time to teaching law. to live up to the standard of Canon Many very able and well-known law- 29. We are unable to say t at yers have done that very thing, and charge has been sustained by ine many well-known lawyers devote a commissioner's report, as we cannot part of their time to teaching in law say the profession or the public has schools. There is this difference in been or will be injuriously affected that kind of teaching and respond- by respondent's conduct. ent's teaching: That in law schools No attorney at law should be percovering the period a student is re- mitted to engage or continue in a quired to study law, the object is to course of conduct make the student acquainted with which brings the condaet prothe fundamental principles of law to profession into disprepare him to practise his profes- repute. It is a vital necessity to the sion, while respondent's course was well-being of society and the admingiven to supplementing the work al- istration of justice that attorneys, ready done by giving the student a who are officials of the court and a ten weeks' review or quiz on the sub- part of our judicial system, should jects he had studied in the law exhibit the most scrupulous care in school, in order to refresh his mem- conducting themselves and their ory and better prepare him to pass business in such manner as will sethe examination for admission to cure and maintain the respect and the bar. A lawyer who has succeed- confidence of the public in the attored in establishing himself in a pay- ney and the profession generally. ing practice of the law might con- The trust and corfidence which must sider it would be beneath his digni- necessarily be reposed in an attorty, or that it would be unprofession- ney by clients who confide to him al in him, to conduct such courses as most intimate secrets and their most respondent conducted, but the views sacred rights require in the attorney
of such a lawyer a high standard and appreciation of Attorney and
cannot be the sole his duty to his clicnts, his profesclient-conducting quiz classes criterion for deter- sion, the courts, and the public. We -unprofessional
mining what is un- feel very little charity for an attor
professional con- ney who is so morally obtuse as not duct. It would not seem strange if to recognize the sacredness of his in some respects the successful law- duties and the necessity for irreyer's ideas of professional conduct proachable conduct in his professhould differ from the ideas of those sion. His failure to live up to the less fortunate. Of course, the ideals requirements for a proper discharge of the lawyer struggling to make of the duties of his office is only a enough to support his family can no little less injurious to the public than more be accepted as the standard the failure of the judge on the bench than those of his more fortunate in the proper conduct and discharge brother. Common sense and a spirit of his official duties. The right to of fairness must, in the absence of practise law is not an absolute right. adjudication, be relied upon for It is a privilege, guidance in determining the ques- which may be re
voke license. tion.
voked when the atUnprofessional conduct which torney's misconduct makes him an would justify disbarment must have unfit person to be allowed to hold a an element of immorality or dishon- license to practise. An attorney can
esty, or be of such properly be disbarred only upon -conduct justifying disbar- character as to be in good cause shown, _right to disbar. ment.
violation of private in a judicial prointerests or the public good. It is
It is ceeding. There is here no contro
-right to re
(311 Ni. 66, 142 N. E. 554.) versy about the fact as to what re- Dunn and Cartwright, JJ., disspondent's conduct was. This court
This court senting: has frequently considered the suffi- The rules of the court prescribe ciency of the proof required to au- the qualifications of general and thorize disbarment. In People ex legal education and of character and rel. Deneen v. Matthews, 217 Ill. 94, general fitness requisite for admis75 N. E. 444, the court held disbar- sion to the bar, and provide the ment was only justified upon clear method by which these shall be asand satisfactory proof. În People certained. The examination which ex rel. Burnap v. Harvey, 41 Ill. 277, must be sustained in the various subthe court said the proof must be jects presented is intended to ascerclear and free from doubt, not only tain the fitness of the applicant, by as to the act charged, but also as to reason of his mental training acthe motive. In People ex rel. Shu- quired by study, and his legal knowlfeldt v. Barker, 56 III. 299, the court edge, to undertake the practice of said slight evidence would not war- law. The respondent is not engaged rant disbarment. An attorney is en- in the preparation of students for titled to practise his profession, and the bar, but for the bar examinashould not be denied the right to do tion, and this not by a study of the so "except. upon clear proof of wil- legal principles involved in the subful and corrupt professional miscon- jects on which the examination duct.” Many more of our decisions must be conducted, but by the memare to be found citing and approv- orizing of answers furnished by the ing the cases above referred to. respondent to questions which he Practically all the disbarment cases
has also furnished, with the statewe have examined charged conduct ment that he is furnishing a large of the attorney which was fraudu- proportion of the questions to be lent or dishonest. A few charged asked at the examination, together soliciting business as an attorney in with the answers. He advertises, a manner which was unprofessional systematically and extensively, his and tended to bring the bar into great success in thus enabling apcontempt. We have already referred plicants to pass the bar examination, to the fact that there was no con- and a considerable proportion of the nection between respondent's quiz applicants at each examination are classes and his practice of the pro- those who, under his tutoring, have fession, further than the fact of prepared to pass an examination by being a lawyer enabled him to se- the study of questions and answers, cure students for his courses. We of which a large proportion-posare unable to see the ethical differ- sibly a half-of the particular quesence between what respondent did, tions have been furnished to the apand substantially the same thing plicants in advance. This is a clear which it is generally understood is evasion of the rule, which contembeing practised by some colleges and plates an examination which will universities. This court said in not be merely a test of memory, but People v. Palmer, 61 Ill. 255, that it will test the mental training, reawas not its province to pass on the soning powers, knowledge of legal style of manners becoming to an principles, mental capacity, honorable member of the profession. eral educational fitness of the appliWe are not to be understood as com- cant. The work of the respondent mending respondent's actions in interferes with such an examination conducting his quiz courses. After and makes the result depend largely careful consideration and delibera- upon the superficial acquaintance tion we only hold that in doing so with a subject which a good memory he was not guilty of unprofessional will enable the applicant thus exconduct of so serious a character as amined temporarily to retain and to justify the destruction of his display,
display, and not upon any real professional life by disbarment. knowledge. It not only lowers the The rule is discharged.
educational standard for admission
to the bar, but also the moral stand- should be condemned instead of conard. The entrance of a lawyer upon doned, and he should be required to his profession ought not to be at- desist from it, and from giving tended with an evasion of the rule courses of the character of those providing for his admission.
which he does give in preparation The conduct of the respondent for the bar examinations.
Conduct in respect of coaching law students as ground for disbarment.
The reported case (PEOPLE EX REL. the courts generally have made a disCHICAGO BAR Asso. V. BAKER, ante, tinction between acts and conduct as 737) is apparently one of first impres- an attorney and as a person, and unsion, an extensive search having re- less the attorney shows such a want vealed no other cases presenting a sim- of professional honesty as renders him ilar state of facts. Generally, as to unworthy of public confidence, or disbarment for misconduct outside of has such a bad character that he is an strictly professional relations, it is unsafe and unfit person to be intrusted said in 2 R. C. L. p. 1099: “It is gen- with the powers of the profession, he erally held that misconduct of an at- will not be disturbed." To the antorney, even though outside of his pro- notator it seems that the decision of fessional dealings, may be sufficient to the court in the reported case, to the justify his disbarment. An attorney effect that it was not unprofessional may be guilty of disreputable prac- for a member of the bar to conduct tices and gross immoralities in his quiz classes to prepare law students private capacity, and without the pale who had completed the required course of the court, which render him unfit of study for their bar examination, is to associate with gentlemen, disqualify consonant with reason, and was in him for the faithful discharge of his effect a holding that the accused professional duties in or out of court, lawyer was not guilty of such a want and render him unworthy to minister of professional honesty as would in the forum of justice. When such a justify his disbarment. It will be obcase arises, from whatever acts or served, however, that the court makes causes, the cardinal condition of the the significant statement: “We are attorney's admission to the bar-the
not to be understood as commending possession of a good moral character respondent's actions in conducting his -is forfeited, and it becomes the quiz courses. After careful considerasolemn duty of the court, upon a due tion and deliberation we only hold presentment of the case, to revoke the that in doing so he was not guilty of authority given to the offending mem- unprofessional conduct of so serious ber as a symbol of legal fitness and a character as to justify the destrucmoral uprightness, lest it be exercised tion of his professional life by disbarfor evil or tarnished with shame. But ment."
R. P. D.
H. H. CABLE et al., Appts.,
Iowa Supreme Court - September 28, 1923.
(- Iowa, 194 N. W. 957.) Trust — application of funds with notice of claim.
1. A cestui que trust may maintain a suit in equity against a bank for
(- Iowa, —, 194 N. W. 957.) funds deposited by the trustee, and applied by the bank to its own claim against the trustee with notice of the claim of the cestui que trust.
[See note on this question beginning on page 756.] Factor — title to property consigned mission house deposits the proceeds of tò.
sales and transmits the proceeds by 2. The title to property consigned to check, it will be charged with notice a commission merchant for sale re- that the only interest which it has in mains in the consignor, for whom the deposits from the proceeds of sales is proceeds are held in trust even though its commission and the expenses necthey are deposited in bank to the credit essary to the handling and disposition of the commission merchant.
of consignments. [See 11 R. C. L. 757; 2 R. C. L. Supp.
Bank - duty to pay checks of commis1318.]
sion merchant. Trust suit to establish funds de
9. A bank in which a commission posited in bank.
merchant deposits the proceeds of 3. The owner of funds placed in a
goods consigned to him, to be transbank by a commission merchant may mitted to the owners by check, is maintain a suit in equity against the
charged with notice of the trust charbank to impress a trust upon any of acter of the funds and bound to pay the funds remaining on deposit, unless checks drawn by the merchant so long the bank has acquired an equitable
as there are funds on deposit for that right thereto without notice of the
purpose. claims of the owner.
[See 3 R. C. L. 549; 1 R. C. L. Supp. [See 3 R. C. L. 552; 1 R. C. L. Supp. 851.] 853.]
Evidence judicial notice Bank – right to appropriate deposit
transaction. in satisfaction of indebtedness. 4. A bank may appropriate a gen
10. The court will not take judicial
notice of the time and order in which eral deposit of a debtor to the discharge of a matured indebtedness.
checks are presented against a bank [See 3 R. C. L. 588; 1 R. C. L. Supp.
account and paid, or in which entries 858; 4 R. C. L. Supp. 204.]
were made in the books, nor that they
were in fact entered in strict order of Trust right to impress on bank de
payment. posit. 5. A cestui que trust cannot recover
Bank state of account
time astrust funds deposited in bank by the
certained. trustee in his own name, and which,
11. In the absence of evidence tendwithout notice of the trust character, ing to show that deposits and checks the bank has applied to a matured in
were entered in a bank account in the debtedness, surrendering to the trus
strict order in which they were made tee the evidence thereof.
and paid, the balance shown at the [See 3 R. C. L. 594; 1 R. C. L. Supp. opening and closing of business will 860; 4 R. C. L. Supp. 205.]
be taken as the true state of the acBank action by cestui que trust
count. after withdrawal of funds.
presumption as to character of bal6. An action cannot be maintained by a cestui que trust against the bank 12. Where a balance is shown in in which the trust fund was deposited, the bank account of a commission after it has been withdrawn by the merchant at the close of business on trustee in the usual course of busi- the day in which he deposited a ness.
trust fund, such balance will be pre- presumption as to withdrawals by sumed to consist of such fund. trustee.
Trust - presumption as to replace7. Where trust funds are deposited ment of trust funds. in the private account of the trustee,
13. Where a commission merchant withdrawals by him will be presumed
has withdrawn from his bank account to be of his own funds.
a portion of the funds representing [See 26 R. C. L. 1357.]
the sale of goods consigned to him, Notice to bank of interest of com- it cannot be presumed that funds submission house.
sequently deposited were intended to 8. Where a bank knows that a com- replace them, where the only funds