
    In the Matter of John A. King on Proceedings for the Revocation of His Admission to the Bar.
    
      Disbarment of attorney — Judgment remaining unreversed — Cannot apply for admission as in first instance — Must apply for reinstatement to court that disbarred him.
    
    After an attorney has been disbarred, the judgment remaining unreversed, he cannot apply, as in the first instance, for admission. His remedy in such case is to apply to the courf in which he was disbarred to be reinstated; which may be done on a proper showing of reformation, or for other satisfactory reasons, arising after the disbarment.
    (Decided March 31, 1896.)
    On February 11, 1882, John A. King, then an attorney at law in this state, was disbarred by the judgment of the court of common pleas of Henry county. The charges had been duly filed and a hearing had on the evidence. There were two charges supported by specifications: One that he had been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude; the other that he had been guilty of unprofessional conduct. Both charges and the specifications were found true; on which the court rendered judgment disbarring him from the practice as an attorney. In June, 1894, on the certificate of an attorney, in the usual form and substance as to moral character, citizenship arid recommendation for admission, he was admitted by this court to an examination, which was conducted by its committee, and on such examination and the recommendation of the committee, was admitted to the practice of the law in all the courts of this state; and the usual certificate of the fact of admission was delivered to him. The facts as to his previous disbarment were not communicated to the court at the time, and it had no knowledge thereof until some time afterward, when they were called to its attention by a member of the bar of the state; and proceedings were then instituted by the attorney-general for the revocation of his admission and the cancellation of his certificate, and notice was served on him. A trial was had and the facts found to be substantially as stated, except that it was shown that the conviction for an offense involving moral turpitiuie, and which constituted one of the grounds of the disbarment, had been reversed by the district court, on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense against the laws of the state. The judgment of disbarment, however, remained in full force and unreversed; and no application had ever been made to set it aside or for a reinstatement. The respondent stated that he had taken the advice of counsel, who gave it as their opinion that his only course was to apply for admission in the usual course, and that this was also the opinion of the common pleas judge of Henry county, to whom he had mentioned the matter. But no one advised him to the effect that he might properly do so, without advising the court as to the history of his case.
    
      John A. King and Hamilton & Kirby, for plaintiff.
    
      F. 8. Monnett, Attorney General, for defendant.
   By the Court.

'When a member of the bar of the state has been,upon proper proceedings, disbarred, and the judgment remains in full force and unreversed, the only remedy of the party is, at the proper time and on a proper showing, to apply to the court in which he was disbarred to be reinstated.

The court rendering the judgment of disbarment, retains a continuing jurisdiction over the subject, as in many similar cases; and may, upon a proper showing of reformation of the party, or other satisfactory reasons, arising after the disbarment, reinstate him in the practice of his profession. Readmission, as upon application and examination in the first instance, is not the proper course. And to make such application without communicating to the court the fact that the applicant had been disbarred, indicates a want of moral sense inconsistent with the character of an honorable attorney.

Admission revoked, and certificate ordered canceled., at the costs of the respondent.  