Opinion
March 20, 1951.
Frank Carter, Tallahassee, in proper person for relator.
E. Dixie Beggs, Pensacola, in proper person for respondent.
Frank Carter, a member of the Florida Bar, lodged with this Court a lengthy document styled a "petition for rule of contempt" against Dixie Beggs also a member of the Florida Bar.
Before the Court made an order on the petition, Beggs filed his motion to strike and expunge Carter's petition for the reason that the petition was libelous, scandalous, false, wholly without merit and filed because of ill will and spite.
This unprecedented petition presents to us the most severe charges against a member of the bar with which we have been confronted. This matter stems from the recent case of Yellow Cab Rental Company v. Pensacola Transit Company, Fla., 50 So.2d 545.
Beggs' client, Pensacola Transit Company, was granted an injunction in the lower court which enjoined the solicitation of passengers along the franchise route of the Transit Company.
The decree was appealed to this Court and after oral argument and mature consideration we affirmed the decree. Carter charges Beggs with employing fraud, chicanery and deception to mislead and defraud this Court. The petition is filled with vicious charges such as "Respondent sank to a new low in contemptuously violating said Code of Ethics by improperly altering and falsely abstracting appellants' brief, their answer, and the testimony."
He then by blanket charges asserts that:
"By unscrupulously advancing false claims in the hope of winning his client's cause, by employing fraud and chicane and by forgetting the great trust of the lawyer, as herein above shown, Respondent has violated Cannon [sic] 15 Section (1), Rule B, Code of Ethics Adopted by The Supreme Court of Florida on January The 27th, 1941.
"By failing in candor and fairness, by misquoting, by asserting as a fact that which had not been proved, by an unprofessional and dishonorable lack of candor in drawing the aforesaid Appellee's Brief, by kindred practices unworthy of an officer of the law charged, as is the lawyer, with the duty of aiding in the administration of justice, as herein above shown, Respondent has violated Cannon 22, Section (1), Rule B, Code of Ethics Adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida on January the 27th, 1941.
"By rendering his client a service involving disloyalty to the law whose minister he was, and disrespect of the judicial office which he was bound to uphold and thereby inviting and meriting stern and just condemnation, by failing to impress upon his undertaking exact compliance with the strictest principles of moral law, as herein above shown, Respondent has violated Cannon 32, Section (1), Rule B, Code of Ethics Adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida on January the 27th, 1941.
"By employing means inconsistent with truth and honor, and by seeking to mislead Your Honors by artifices and false statements of fact as herein above shown, Respondent has violated his Oath of Admission to the Bar.
"By employing means inconsistent with truth and by seeking to mislead Your Honors by artifice, as hereinabove shown, Respondent has violated Cannon 3, Section (11), Additional Ethics Governing Attorneys, Code of Ethics Adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida on January the 27th, 1941.
"By improperly altering and falsely abstracting pleadings and other court records, as hereinabove shown, Respondent has violated Cannon 23, Section (11), Additional Ethics Governing Attorneys, Code of Ethics Adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida on January the 27th, 1941.
"By knowingly or wilfully making false representations of fact to Your Honors to induce a favorable action or ruling as hereinabove shown, Respondent has violated Cannon 24, Section (11), Additional Ethics Governing Attorneys, Code of Ethics Adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida on January the 27th, 1941.
"By wilful misconduct and deceit, as hereinabove shown, Respondent has violated Cannon 27, Section (11), Additional Ethics Governing Attorneys, Code of Ethics Adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida on January the 27th, 1941.
"By conduct in the practice of his profession unbecoming an attorney at law, as hereinabove shown, Respondent has violated Cannon 30, Section (11), Additional Ethics Governing Attorneys, Code of Ethics Adopted by the Supreme Court of Florida on January the 27th, 1941.
"By obstructing, impeding and embarrassing this Court in its administration of justice, as hereinabove shown, Respondent has assaulted the authority and dignity of this Court and of Your Honors in the presence of this Court and of Your Honors and has assaulted the inherent integrity of the judicial processes of this Court and of Your Honors."
The Court en banc has considered this matter because we are deeply concerned with the seriousness of the charges made. The lawyers of this state are officers of the court. We are just as anxious to protect the good name and reputation of a lawyer from groundless assaults as we are to punish a wrongdoer. Perhaps no profession renders a greater public service than the legal. A lawyer's greatest asset is his good name and reputation. We recall that Shakespeare said: "* * * Who steals my purse steals trash; `tis something, nothing; `Twas mine, `tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed. * * *"
We will not prolong this opinion by elaborating upon the evidence to refute the vicious charges. It is enough to say that those justices who participated in the decision of the case out of which these charges arose are completely satisfied that Beggs, in no respect, falsified or misquoted the evidence. In fact, his brief and oral argument before this Court were eminently fair and in no sense misled the Court.
At the bar of this Court Carter was asked by members of the Court to designate in some single instance where Beggs had misquoted or falsified the record or his briefs. He could point to none. So the charges stand wholly without support as to fact and truth.
It was disclosed also that Carter gave copies of his unwarranted charges to the press before filing same in this Court; that wide publicity was given to them in the press over the state and on the radio. Quite naturally Beggs was embarrassed and the Florida Bar also inasmuch as the news stories carried his name as a former president of the Florida State Bar Association. The charges were not only a complete fabrication but were made and publicized with bad motive.
Therefore it is our unanimous conclusion that Beggs be and he is vindicated of any wrong; that his motion to expunge the suggestion as libelous and scandalous be granted.
It is also our conclusion that Carter be severely censured and reprimanded for his unjustified conduct in this matter.
Character assassination may be tolerated in some places but it has no place in the administration of justice.
This episode is the first to raise its ugly head in this Court and we unhesitatingly and emphatically arrest any thought of such in the future. Attorneys who resort to smear tactics and personalities evidence a lack of professional tact and concept. See Rule B, Section 1-17, Ethics Governing Attorneys, F.S.A. Vol. 31.
This offender and all of like inclination may learn now that this Court is not a forum to be used as a sounding board to vent his unguarded wrath against opposing counsel. It harms both the giver and receiver and offends the dignity of this Court.
This being a first offense we only rebuke attorney Carter and trust we will not be called upon in the future to deal with such.
It is so ordered.
SEBRING, C.J., and THOMAS, HOBSON and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concurring specially.
I concur in the views expressed by Mr. Justice ADAMS. I submit this concurrence because of the nonchalant tendency to assault one's character or motives without provocation. Each generation of the bar is trained on the theory that good character is a "pearl of great price," an indispensable asset to professional integrity and that he who assaults it without justification will be held responsible for so doing. The Board of Bar Examiners spends a neat sum to investigate the moral character of applicants for admission to the bar and rejects all who do not meet the character test. They should encourage an environment that builds rather than breaks it down.
It would be impossible to think of Marshall, Hughes, Taylor, Whitfield or any reputable lawyer devoid of moral excellence. Democratic society is equally as vulnerable, and if unsupported by a moral order will disintegrate. All the ordinances, statutes and resolutions, however high their purpose, will not save it from chaos if old fashioned honesty, integrity and personal worth are abandoned. Patriotism is not enough and even though it be a part of the moral and spiritual element it will not save it. In the name of patriotism Hitler overran and conquered much of Europe, he denied the existence of God and a moral order and perished with his empire.
In the litigation of any cause the lawyer's effort is bounded by the law books and the facts out of which it arises. When his zeal for client or cause permits him to transgress this boundary, he is in danger of forfeiting that which he cannot practice law without, the confidence of the court and the respect of his brethren at the bar. In this case relator lost in the Circuit Court, a unanimous judgment of a division of this Court was, on appeal, recorded against him. He now charges opposing counsel with misleading the court and violating the code of ethics in that he distorted the pleadings and the evidence. It is remarkable that such a serious error was not detected sooner and it is even more remarkable that the Circuit Court and four Justices of this Court should have been misled and deceived by it.
The respondent is a very reputable lawyer and comes from a family of equally reputable lawyers. His grandfather was one of the early settlers in Madison County and was for years clerk of the Circuit Court of that county. His Uncle James D. Beggs was for many years a distinguished member of the Orlando bar, his father was for many years a distinguished member of the Pensacola Bar. Another member of the family is an honored member of the Fort Myers bar. Not one of them has ever before been charged with unprofessional conduct. In fact, they have adorned the profession for more than half a century and their conduct has been of the best quality. I do not think this unfortunate episode has revealed a solitary circumstance to reflect on the character of respondent.
Relator's trouble was inability to cope with defeat, one of the most important lessons for a lawyer to learn. When the sting of defeat leaves an ugly mark on a lawyer's conscience he needs to give it further discipline. If he blames some one else for his defeat, or lets it rankle in his mind, makes him resentful, poisons his spirit or tempts him to lower his standards and he cannot overcome the habit, he has chosen his vocation unwisely and will never be happy in it regardless of what it may be.
I therefore concur.
SEBRING, C.J., concurs.
It is my view that the order to strike and expunge the petition of Attorney Carter filed in this Court is appropriate and proper. We may take judicial notice of the fact that Attorney Beggs, of Pensacola, is an able and ethical practitioner. His ability, integrity and learning place him among the leaders of the Bar of the State of Florida. Mr. Carter is a young man and has practiced at the bar only for a short period of time. The impetuous action in filing the petition in question by Mr. Carter should be weighed in connection with his youth and the lack of experience at the bar. I think character and integrity are the most valuable attributes any attorney can take into a court room with him.