In Re Disbarment of Charles W. Smith

Supreme Court of Minnesota

In Re Disbarment of Charles W. Smith

237 N.W. 877, 184 Minn. 87, 1931 Minn. LEXIS 1023

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedAugust 24, 1931

DocketNo. 28,534.

StatusPublished

This text of 237 N.W. 877 (In Re Disbarment of Charles W. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Disbarment of Charles W. Smith, 237 N.W. 877, 184 Minn. 87, 1931 Minn. LEXIS 1023 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The state board of law examiners has filed charges against Charles W. Smith, a lawyer, asking that he be disciplined. The facts as established by the accusation and the ansAver are these:

In January, 1927, counsel Avas employed by one John Franta to collect an account against one Louis Stumvall. A short time later counsel was employed by the same client to cancel a land contract and take the necessary steps to regain possession of the land involved therein.

In February, 1927, counsel collected $40 on the account. He informed his client of this, but treated the proceeds therefrom as a retainer in the second employment, Avhich he then thought Avould involve a larger fee. But in a short time the land contract matter was adjusted and counsel did not claim to be entitled to more than $15 of the $40 in his hands belonging to the client. Payment of his check to his client for $25 Avas refused for want of funds. Counsel’s financial condition Avas serious. He had umvisely indulged in the excessive use of intoxicating liquor to the detriment of his economic and professional standing. His earning capacity as a lawyer Avas thereby substantially impaired. He was subjected to the expense of taking one of his children to the hospital on two *88 occasions for operations; he and his wife were both ill with pneumonia. Because of his habits and the excessive and unusual expense to which he was subjected, he was unable to live and support his family from his professional income.

In the period of degradation, counsel naturally ceased the practice of law for want of clients and was forced by necessity to seek the work of a layman. In these times of economic depression he found the way hard, and his insufficient earnings were scarcely enough to enable his family to live. He is simply unable to pay the $25 which he justly owes; a pitiful situation. We are not certain that counsel has the stability to utilize the opportunity that Ave have concluded to give him. He has noAv refrained from the use of liquor for more than a year and claims that he has permanently ceased the use thereof. There is little excuse for one qualified to be a lawyer to leave such a trail of Aveakness, shaming his family and dishonoring the legal profession. To err hoAvever is human. Our errors are much a matter of degree. We must all to some extent apply the Latin phrase “dum spiro spero” (Avhile I breathe I hope).

Charles W. Smith is suspended from practicing laAv in Minnesota until September 1, 1932. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The state board of law examiners has filed charges against Charles W. Smith, a lawyer, asking that he be disciplined. The facts as established by the accusation and the ansAver are these:

In January, 1927, counsel Avas employed by one John Franta to collect an account against one Louis Stumvall. A short time later counsel was employed by the same client to cancel a land contract and take the necessary steps to regain possession of the land involved therein.

In February, 1927, counsel collected $40 on the account. He informed his client of this, but treated the proceeds therefrom as a retainer in the second employment, Avhich he then thought Avould involve a larger fee. But in a short time the land contract matter was adjusted and counsel did not claim to be entitled to more than $15 of the $40 in his hands belonging to the client. Payment of his check to his client for $25 Avas refused for want of funds. Counsel’s financial condition Avas serious. He had umvisely indulged in the excessive use of intoxicating liquor to the detriment of his economic and professional standing. His earning capacity as a lawyer Avas thereby substantially impaired. He was subjected to the expense of taking one of his children to the hospital on two *88 occasions for operations; he and his wife were both ill with pneumonia. Because of his habits and the excessive and unusual expense to which he was subjected, he was unable to live and support his family from his professional income.

In the period of degradation, counsel naturally ceased the practice of law for want of clients and was forced by necessity to seek the work of a layman. In these times of economic depression he found the way hard, and his insufficient earnings were scarcely enough to enable his family to live. He is simply unable to pay the $25 which he justly owes; a pitiful situation. We are not certain that counsel has the stability to utilize the opportunity that Ave have concluded to give him. He has noAv refrained from the use of liquor for more than a year and claims that he has permanently ceased the use thereof. There is little excuse for one qualified to be a lawyer to leave such a trail of Aveakness, shaming his family and dishonoring the legal profession. To err hoAvever is human. Our errors are much a matter of degree. We must all to some extent apply the Latin phrase “dum spiro spero” (Avhile I breathe I hope).

Charles W. Smith is suspended from practicing laAv in Minnesota until September 1, 1932. Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 N.W. 877, 184 Minn. 87, 1931 Minn. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-disbarment-of-charles-w-smith-minn-1931.