
    Argued September 25,
    defendant disbarred November 10, 1914.
    STATE ex rel. v. SMITH.
    (144 Pac. 424.)
    Attorney and Client — Disbarment — “Willful Deceit and Misconduct in Profession.”
    1. An attorney, who misrepresented to his client the cost of securing patents for its mining claims and converted to his own use the money remitted to him to pay the expense', although he had received other money in excess of what would be a reasonable fee for his services, is guilty of “willful deceit and misconduct in his profession,” within the meaning of Section 1092, subdivision 3, L. O. L., for which he may be disbarred, under Section 1091, L. O. L., authorizing the disbarment of an attorney for any acts which would prevent his admission to practice.
    [As to causes and proceedings for disbarment of attorneys and •the power of courts to disbar, see notes in 95 Am. Dee. 333; 45 Am. St. Rep. 71.]
    Original proceedings in Supreme Court.
    Statement Per Curiam.
    This is an original proceeding commenced in this . eourt by the state on the relation of John McCourt and others, for the disbarment of Robert G. Smith for willful deceit and misconduct in his profession as an attorney at law. He is a member of the bar of this court, residing and practicing his profession at Grants Pass, Oregon. It is charged in the accusation that . he made false representations to the Cleopatra Development Company, a mining corporation, of Washington, and to J. D. Lacey, its agent, concerning the patenting of certain mining claims in Northern Cali, fornia, in which matter he was employed as attorney; that he represented to the said Lacey that the expense of the advertisement of the notices of applications for patents to said claims was $375, and requested the said Lacey to remit that amount, which amount Lacey sent to him; that he claimed to have paid that amount for said advertising, and sent to said Lacey a purported receipt from the newspaper for that amount, which had not been paid, and that the price of said advertisement was not $375, but $60; that he converted the said sum to his own use, and did not pay even the $60; that he also requested Lacey to forward to him $250 as necessary to pay the filing fee in connection therewith, which sum said Lacey sent to him; that the said filing fee was only $10, and that the said Smith converted the remaining $240 to his own use; that he also represented to the said Lacey that the sum of $2,575 was needed to pay the purchase price of the land contained within said claims, which amount said Lacey remitted to bim, and it was converted to his own use by the said Smith, and nothing was paid on the purchase price of said claims; that he continually refused to account for or pay over said sums, or any part thereof, to the said Cleopatra Development Company, though often demanded; that thereafter the said Cleopatra Development Company brought suit in the United States District Court for Oregon to recover the sum of $4,490 due from said Robert G> Smith, which amount included the items above mentioned. While said suit was pending, it was stipulated between the said development company and Robert G. Smith that the development company should have judgment against him for the said sum, and in case he paid to the Cleopatra Development Company $2,500 on or before the 10th day of October, 1913, said amount would be accepted in full satisfaction of all claim of plaintiff against him. Said amount not being paid according to the stipulation, judgment was rendered against him in favor of the development company for the said sum of $4,490, with interest and costs.
    Defendant Disbarred.
    For the State there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. John McCourt and Mr. John H. McNary.
    
    For the Grievance Committee of the Oregon State Bar Association there was a brief over the name of Mr. Elton Watkins.
    
    No appearance for the defendant except a brief over the name of Mr. Lionel B. Webster.
    
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

This unprofessional conduct on the part of Smith is in violation of Section 1092, subdivision 3, L. O. L., for which he is subject to disbarment, under Section 1091, L. O. L. There is no statement of account by Robert G. Smith, or any showing as to the amount of money that came into his hands from the said development company; but it incidentally appears that he received $1,000 from the development company, not included in the items above mentioned, except in the $4,490. The said Smith contends that he converted the said money because the development company did not pay his fees. He says in his testimony he did not ask tlie development company for a payment tliereon until November, 1909, while tbe $240 and $375 above mentioned were received by Mm for specific purposes and were so converted in 1906, and $2,575 was received in 1908, being converted at that time. There may be a question as to whether he is entitled to any fees in such a ease; but he received money, over and above the amount mentioned herein, which would undoubtedly more than cover his reasonable fees. There is no question but that Robert G. Smith was guilty of willful deceit and misconduct in his professional dealings with the Cleopatra Development Company and with Lacey, its agent.

It is hereby ordered that the said Robert G. Smith be disbarred from practice in any of the courts of this state, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys in this court. Defendant Disbarred.  