Opinion
No. 8363.
Argued November 1, 1943.
Decided November 22, 1943.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
Proceeding by the Committee on Admissions and Grievances of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Isadore H. Halpern to have him disbarred from practice of law in District of Columbia. From an order that Isadore H. Halpern be censured and prohibited from practicing law in the District of Columbia for period of six months, he appeals.
Affirmed.
Mr. Lawrence Koenigsberger, of Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Isadore H. Halpern, of Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Edmund L. Jones, of Washington, D.C., with whom Messrs. Charles F. Wilson and Austin F. Canfield, both of Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
This is a proceeding begun by the Committee on Admissions and Grievances of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Isadore H. Halpern, a member of the Bar, to have him disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia.
The proceeding was heard by a court composed of United States District Judges Letts, Laws and McGuire, who, after a full hearing, at which appellant had the benefit of able counsel, reached the conclusion that the proof sustained the charges and ordered that appellant be censured and prohibited from practicing law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months. The appeal is from this order.
We have read with care the evidence taken on the hearing and are of opinion that the charge of professional misconduct was established by convincing proof, and we are also of opinion that the character of the misconduct fully justified the censure and the order of suspension. Indeed, it may be fairly said it would amply justify an order of disbarment. In our view, appellant has shown nothing of which he may properly complain. Disbarment proceedings, experience has shown, are necessary in the protection of the public, "who have a right to expect that courts will be vigilant in withholding, and, if already given, withdrawing, their certificates of qualification and character," when, upon a full hearing, these are shown to have been abused.
In re Shepard, 109 Mich. 631, 67 N.W. 971, 972.
Affirmed.