In re Baker

Background

The Court considered a report about Ralph J. Baker, a member of the Court’s bar, who failed to deposit a $15.45 check issued to him on November 10, 1934, as counsel in a case. The Clerk sent him four letters on February 1, 1935, February 28, 1935, April 6, 1935, and November 2, 1935, about the check, and Baker did not answer those communications. Because he did not respond, the Court issued a rule on December 9, 1935, asking him to show cause why he should not be disbarred (removed from the Court’s list of lawyers).

Reasoning

Mr. Baker later replied to the rule, apologized for his neglect, and deposited the check. The Court found that his failure to respond to communications from the Clerk was an unjustified lapse in duties owed by a member of the Court’s bar. Given his apology and the payment, the Court chose to reprimand him rather than remove his right to practice in the Court. The rule to show cause was discharged, meaning the Court ended the disbarment proceeding.

Real world impact

This order publicly admonishes a lawyer for ignoring official Court communications and for delay in handling a small court payment. It shows that the Court will enforce basic obligations of lawyers who practice before it, while allowing a reprimand and resolution when the lawyer corrects the mistake. The decision is limited to this disciplinary matter and does not create a broad new rule.