Opinion
April 25, 1936.
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT: Divorce. Where an attorney published a book entitled SYNOPSIS OF THE DIVORCE LAW, calling attention to the ease of conducting a divorce in Missouri without the discovery by defendants that the action is pending, and advertized "A DIVORCE MECCA," "Reno Excelled," "Synopsis sent sealed for $1," sending to each person answering, a reprint from a newspaper extolling his virtues as a divorce lawyer and a form letter requesting a statement of marital troubles, the attorney was guilty of gross misconduct, constituting grounds for disbarment or suspension.
RESPONDENT SUSPENDED FOR SIX MONTHS.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Franklin E. Reagan, Assistant Attorney General, for informants.
(1) An attorney who solicits divorce suits by advertisements in newspapers and magazines, should be disbarred; (a) it is a misdemeanor; (b) it is sufficient grounds for disbarment. (a) It is a misdemeanor. Secs. 4267, 11707, R.S. 1929; Mayer v. State Bar of California, 26 P.2d 9; People v. Smith, 66 N.E. 27. (b) It is sufficient grounds for disbarment. In re Scoular, 123 P. 13; In re Cohen, 159 N.E. 495; In re Schwarz, 132 N.E. 921; In re Donovan, 178 N.W. 143; People v. MacCabe, 32 P. 280; People v. Berezniak, 127 N.E. 36; In re Schnitzer, 112 P. 848; In re Disbarment of Oliensis, 26 Pa. Dist. Rep. 853; People ex rel. v. Taylor, 75 P. 914; Mayer v. State Bar of Cal., 39 P.2d 206. (2) Respondent is a common barrator. Secs. 645, 3926, R.S. 1929; Commonwealth v. Davis, 28 Mass. 432; State v. Noell, 295 S.W. 529; State v. Chitty, 1 Bailey, 379; State ex rel. v. Rossman, 101 P. 357. (3) Respondent's conduct in divorce cases has been fraudulent, (a) in knowingly permitting clients to testify falsely as to their residence, and, (b) in preparing and using depositions in Missouri which purported to have been taken in other States. (a) In knowingly permitting clients to testify falsely as to their residence. Sec. 1351, R.S. 1929; Kruse v. Kruse, 25 Mo. 68; Hays v. Hays, 282 S.W. 57; DiBrigida v. DiBrigida, 172 A. 508; State v. Herren, 94 S.E. 698; Williams v. Williams, 78 A. 695; Andrade v. Andrade, 128 P. 816; Butler v. Butler, 134 N.Y.S. 108; Cohen v. Cohen, 84 A. 123; Halpine v. Halpine, 52 Pa. Sup. Ct. 86; Smilie v. Smilie, 141 P. 829; Kadello v. Kadello, 29 P.2d 171; Lister v. Lister, 97 A. 170; Benson v. Benson, 40 F.2d 159; Wagoner v. Wagoner, 229 S.W. 1064; Coffey v. Coffey, 71 S.W.2d 141. (b) In preparing and using depositions in Missouri which purported to have been taken in other States. Sec. 1758, R.S. 1929.
Waldo Edwards, Charles W. Shelton, Frank Cottey and George N. Davis for respondents.
(1) Respondent has not been proceeded against for a misdemeanor nor is the mere commission of a misdemeanor not involving moral turpitude grounds for disbarment. If judgment is sought under the statute, the statute must be followed. The respondent is not guilty of a misdemeanor under Section 4267. This proceeding is under the general power of the court. Where disbarment has been sought of attorneys advertising in divorce matters in newspapers and magazines, disbarment has been the exception rather than the rule. Unless accompanied by acts involving moral turpitude or willful disregard of the court's orders, it has not, as a rule, been resorted to. The facts in this case do not warrant such drastic action. Respondent's life has been devoted to the general practice of the law, and no person, or client, has been heard to complain of his conduct. People v. Berezniak, 127 N.E. 36. (2) Respondent is not a common barrator. There is no testimony whatever that he ever urged any person to file a divorce suit or that he sought to stir up domestic discontent. It is solely with regard to the venue of such suits that any question can be raised. (3) The testimony does not warrant the charge that the respondent knowingly allowed clients to testify falsely as to their residences. He made no secret of his belief that his clients might establish a residence in Missouri and no matter how short a time they may have resided here, if the causes for divorce occurred while they so resided, that any divorce action might be successfully prosecuted. Hays v. Hays, 291 S.W. 508. The testimony shows that if this matter had been allowed to take its course, the whole matter would have soon died a natural death. An erroneous theory of law cannot long prevail in the courts.
Original proceeding to disbar an attorney at law. The pleadings are not questioned, and the facts may be stated as follows:
For many years Joseph S. Tall has practiced law at Kahoka, Missouri. He is sixty-six years of age. In 1932 he published a twelve page book entitled SYNOPSIS OF THE DIVORCE LAW. It contained a statement as follows:
"You will observe under our laws that the paper containing the notice is not required to be sent to the last known address, or to the address of the defendant. This provision, omitted from our statute, is in almost every statute and code of almost every State in the Union. You will observe that it would be almost impossible for a nonresident defendant to ever discover the fact that a divorce suit was pending against them in Missouri."
He engaged the services of a national agency to advertise the book. Advertisements appeared in the Police Gazette, Grit, Pathfinder and Screen Fund. An advertisement follows:
"DIVORCE MECCA"
"Synopsis of the law sent upon receipt of $1.00 to Box 392, Keokuk, Iowa."
The box was registered in his name. Keokuk is twenty-two miles from Kahoka. It will be noted that the advertisement does not mention respondent Tall.
Another advertisement follows:
"A DIVORCE MECCA"
"Certain conditions make no length of residence necessary. Recognized everywhere. Reno excelled. Synopsis sent sealed for $1.00.
"Box 392 "Keokuk, Iowa."
He mailed to persons answering the advertisement and sending a dollar a copy of the book, a reprint from the Omaha World Herald extolling the virtues of respondent as a divorce lawyer, and a form letter requesting a statement of the marital troubles and a retainer fee of ten dollars. In part said newspaper article follows:
"QUICK DIVORCE IN MISSOURI"
"Kahoka Would Like to Become Second Reno, and Colonel Tall is Prophet of the New Divorce Mecca."
"If you are looking for a quick divorce, don't worry about a long desert trip to Mexico or Reno, Nev., or a transatlantic passage to Paris, France. For we have a coming divorce mill right next door in the little county seat town of Kahoka, Mo. And what's more, you can get married again as soon as the divorce is granted.
"The credit for discovering these possibilities for a divorce `Mecca' goes to Colonel J.S. Tall, attorney at law at Kahoka, county seat of Missouri's most northeasterly county. Colonel Tall, like Maitre Garrulier of the Maupassant story, has `worked out the obscure law of divorce as if it had been a California gold mine' and offers the result of his research to the interested in the form of a `Synopsis of the Missouri Divorce Laws.'"
As a result of respondent's activities a number of divorce suits were filed by him in the circuit court at Kahoka. The plaintiffs resided either in Minnesota, Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa or New York. Usually the proprietor of the hotel or an employee of the hotel was the character witness for plaintiff. The plaintiffs present at the trial testified that they resided in Kahoka. They were in the State only for "dinner" or "a few days or weeks." After the trial they left the State. In two cases plaintiffs came to Missouri and filed suit. They then returned to the State in which they resided. Thereafter depositions were prepared by respondent at his office in Kahoka. He dictated the questions, answers and the certificate of the officer designated to take the depositions. He then sent the depositions to said officer in the State in which plaintiff resided, who caused the same to be signed by the nonresident witnesses. The said officer then certified the same as "the depositions taken by me."
Finally the divorce business was such that respondent wrote an article with reference thereto and caused same to be published in the local newspaper at Kahoka. In part it follows:
"Colonel J.S. Tall, is establishing a reputation from ocean to ocean in divorce matters, and there is a prospect of Kahoka becoming a little Reno or perhaps in divorce matters bringing to our city a clientage that will break into the lucrative receipts, from the expenditure of money by those seeking marital severances.
"The City of Reno is reported to take in from a million five hundred thousand to two million dollars a year, and if Kahoka can ever secure a small part of this amount, we, as well as all other residents and business men here will be greatly pleased, even though some of us do not sanction the severance of matrimonial ties. . . .
"We are for Colonel Tall in his new enterprise, we are for Herbert Jenkins and his button factory, we are for Dr. Pauly and his hospital, we are for each and every enterprise to bring the people to Kahoka, for some of them at least will spend some money and perhaps a considerable amount of money with our merchants, boarding houses, hotels and other Kahoka business establishments."
Comment is unnecessary. The facts speak for themselves.
Respondent acted in the matter without considering his duty and oath as an attorney. Indeed, his conduct indicates that he had no thought of the bench, the bar and the public. At least he is guilty of gross misconduct. The rule is stated by a standard authority as follows: "It is generally held that the encouragement by attorneys of divorce litigation, by means of advertisements or circulars so worded as to induce divorce proceedings, and the employment of themselves therein, constitutes ground for disbarment or suspension." [9 A.L.R. 1500, note; 55 A.L.R. 1309, l.c. 1318.]
In view of all the circumstances, it is ordered that the license of respondent to practice law in this State be and the same is hereby suspended for a period of six months from this date and until the payment of the costs of this proceeding. All concur.