Summary of Opinion: In the Matter of Disbarment of Arthur H. Hutchinson

Factual and Procedural Background

This proceeding for disbarment was filed in the Supreme Court of Washington on April 14, 1934 (Docket No. C.D. 1995, En Banc). The board of governors of the Washington State Bar Association conducted a formal hearing based on a written report of a trial committee and approved specific findings that Arthur H. Hutchinson, an attorney, had collected money for clients and thereafter failed and refused to account for the collections upon clients' demands. The board's findings describe prolonged evasive misrepresentations by the attorney regarding amounts collected, including representations that he had received nothing, and that much of the collected money remained improperly withheld until after the disbarment proceedings were commenced. The board of governors recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year. Attorneys of record identified in the opinion are Matthew W. Hill for the board of governors and Rummens Griffin for the accused. The opinion was issued July 2, 1934.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether suspension from the practice of law for one year is warranted where an attorney collected and withheld his clients' money, misrepresented or failed to disclose amounts received, and refused to account until disbarment proceedings were commenced.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the board of governors' approved findings and concluded that those findings were clearly sustained by the evidence. The factual findings established that the attorney had collected client funds, repeatedly refused to account for them on demand, and had made evasive or false statements about the amounts received; additionally, much of the collected money was retained by the attorney until after the disbarment proceeding began. Although the court acknowledged that a plea or argument in extenuation had been offered by the accused, it found that such mitigation was not reasonably persuasive to reduce the seriousness of the misconduct. On that basis, the court accepted the board's recommendation and approved suspension.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court ordered that Arthur H. Hutchinson be suspended from the practice of law in the State of Washington for a period of one year.

Implications: The direct effect is the one-year suspension, with the suspension period to begin thirty days after the filing of the opinion and order. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications beyond the case-specific disciplinary result.

Show full summary ...

In the Matter of Disbarment of ARTHUR H. HUTCHINSON.

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT (7) — SUSPENSION AND DISBARMENT — GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION — FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR COLLECTIONS. A judgment of suspension for one year will be sustained where it appears that an attorney collected and withheld his client's money and refused to account therefor until disbarment proceedings were commenced.

MITCHELL, J.

This is a proceeding for the disbarment of Arthur H. Hutchinson. The board of governors of the Washington state bar association, at a formal hearing upon a written report made by a trial committee, has approved specific findings of the collection of money by the attorney for his clients, in several cases wherein he failed and refused to account, upon demands of his clients, and in which for long periods of time he evasively misrepresented the amounts received, or stated, in effect, that he had received nothing, and much of which amounts actually collected was still improperly withheld by him until after this disbarment proceeding was commenced. The board of governors has recommended that the accused be suspended from the practice of law in this state for one year.

[1] The findings are clearly sustained by the evidence, and, while a plea or argument in extenuation has been offered, we cannot think it reasonably mitigates the offenses. The recommendation of the board of governors, in our opinion, merits approval.

Therefore, the order is that the defendant be suspended from the practice of law in this state for a period of one year. Time will begin to run thirty days after the filing of this opinion and order.

ALL CONCUR.

IN RE HUTCHINSON