This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
this is unclear, although most likely these matters were regarded as confidential. In other states, where membership in the bar association is a prerequisite for maintaining a license to practice law, these affairs could be handled less publicly, without the need for court action. Full disclosure of lawyer misconduct is a feature of the later part of the twentieth century. Before then, ru- mor and innuendo was all that the public had available to learn why a particular of- fice closed or an attorney moved to anoth- er state. Only in the last decades of the twenti- eth century are there sanctions—disbar- ments and one public reprimand—based on the decisions of other state courts, re- flecting the growth in the regional practice of law and the necessary linkages that seek to prevent a lawyer from fleeing a bad re- cord and starting over after lighting out for the territory.102


Enright and Reinstatement J.J. Enright was disbarred in 1895 for


offering evidence to the opposing party’s attorney that would destroy his own cli- ent’s case, if he was paid $400.103


The law-


yer and his client had both been sued, and Enright’s settlement offer was intended to relieve him of his exposure in the suit. His first problem was trying to be both coun- sel and party. Worse yet, there was no such evidence—he had made that up. The oath to do no falsehood and the obligation to be straight with the court was an attempt to secure an “unfair and fraudulent settle- ment … a plain violation of his oath and of his duty,” according to the decision signed by Chief Justice Jonathan Ross.104 Two years later, he petitioned for rein- statement.105 apology,


Enright’s sole defense was an


that he has realized and appreciat- ed, to the fullest extent, and with the most intense feeling, all the grave con- sequences of his removal; that he has suffered greatly from loss of business and the consequent taking from him of his means of livelihood that has been the result of it; … that to continue his punishment would be unnecessary to his discipline, or for public example, and would be unnecessarily severe for the offense charged.


The Chief Justice was unmoved by this ar- gument. This isn’t only about the attorney, he stated, but the protection of the court and the community.


To restore him to the office of attor- ney for the reasons set forth in the pe- titions would, in effect, abrogate the rule requiring the applicant for admis- sion as an attorney to establish that


www.vtbar.org


he is of good moral character, and fur- nish Mr. Enright an opportunity to re- peat the commission of the same of- fense for which he was disbarred, and of other offenses of like character. If the present had been his original ap- plication for admission to the bar, he could not be admitted, without more being shown than what is contained in these petitions.106


His petition was denied.


Disbarment of a State’s Attorney State’s Attorney Joseph C. Jones was


disbarred in 1897 for failing to prosecute a large number of cases for trafficking in in- toxicating liquor, causing the State to lose the opportunity to claim bail forfeitures because of his failure to serve the defen- dants in a timely manner.107


Jones defended by claim-


ing that he was answerable only to the vot- ers, not the Court, as an elected prosecu- tor, but the Court was unmoved. Responding to Jones’s claim that he should be entitled to a jury trial, Judge La- forrest Thompson, writing for the Court, stated,


Compounding


the problem, he lied to the Court about the situation, “intentionally omitting to state frankly and fairly what had been done in those suits.”108


THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2013


it is manifest that the object of admis- sion to the bar is to bring to the [ad- ministration] of justice a class of high- minded men, of such education and training, and such mental and moral qualifications, as can and will aid in de- termining the rights and duties of all litigants, under all circumstances, ac- cording to law, so that the adminis- tration of the law may be pure, clean, and enlightened, and thereby every one obtain his exact rights and privi- leges. When one so admitted, by his conduct as an attorney, or as an indi- vidual, shows himself unworthy of his high calling, and disgraces the office, it is the duty of the Court, empowered


15


Ruminations: The Great Falls


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40