In re Davis
Headline: Court reprimands a lawyer for ignoring clerk’s letters about unpaid court costs, discharges a pending disbarment threat after the fees were paid, and reinforces attorneys’ duty to answer court communications.
Holding:
- Gives a public reprimand to a lawyer who ignored clerk communications.
- Discharges a pending disbarment rule once costs were paid.
- Affirms duty of attorneys to respond to court clerk’s letters.
Summary
Background
The clerk told the Court that a bill for costs had been taxed against the Greek Catholic Union in the case American Surety Co. of New York v. Greek Catholic Union and that the bill, rendered March 31, 1932, had been sent to Ralph C. Davis, a member of this Court’s Bar and counsel for the organization. The clerk also reported that Davis did not pay the bill and failed to answer three letters about the payment dated August 8, 1932, November 29, 1932, and February 7, 1933.
Reasoning
Because Davis did not respond to the clerk’s communications, the Court issued a rule on April 10, 1933, directing him to show cause why he should not be disbarred for conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar. Davis made a response to that rule, and the unpaid costs were then paid. The Court considered those facts and concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate action for Davis’s unjustified failure to respond to communications from the clerk about Court business. The Court therefore publicly reprimanded him and discharged the rule to show cause.
Real world impact
The immediate result is a formal reprimand of the lawyer rather than disbarment, and the matter ended when the costs were paid. The decision underscores that attorneys who represent parties before this Court must respond to clerk communications about Court business and outstanding costs. The order resolves the disciplinary proceeding described in the record and closes the rule to show cause.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?