{
  "id": 8628815,
  "name": "In re Disbarment of JOHN M. BRITTAIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Disbarment of Brittain",
  "decision_date": "1938-06-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "95",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 95"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S. E., 24",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628717
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S. E., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626411
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S. E., 725",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609191
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0369-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S. E., 532",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 693",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221585
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0693-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 5684,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.622511840187583e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45062549978782546
    },
    "sha256": "d7ca856418ecb0192a77d606fc72bf0674171e62fe550d294fa5fd132f36adc7",
    "simhash": "1:f546e568d14ebac6",
    "word_count": 944
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Sea well, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In re Disbarment of JOHN M. BRITTAIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe constitutionality of tbe act incorporating tbe State Bar is not perforce presented on tbe present record. In re Parker, 209 N. C., 693, 184 S. E., 532. Nor is it necessary tbat we here decide whether tbe General Assembly intended to make its provisions retroactive as well as prospective in effect. Ashley v. Brown, 198 N. C., 369, 151 S. E., 725. Tbe respondent has confessed bis guilt in open court to four crimes, all involving moral turpitude, and be has been disbarred from pr\u00e1cticing in tbe District Court of tbe United States. Nothing is offered in defense or by way of excuse. Tbe record engenders but a single conclusion.\nTbe respondent\u2019s admissions require bis disbarment, and tbe action of tbe Attorney-General is well advised. S. v. Spivey, 213 N. C., 45, 195 S. E., 1; S. v. Harwood, 206 N. C., 87, 173 S. E., 24; In re West, 212 N. C., 189, 193 S. E., 134, and eases there cited. This course renders academic tbe question presented by tbe appeal. What shall it profit tbe respondent if be gain tbe whole case and lose bis own license ? Disbarment must ultimately result in any event.\nNor is it necessary tbat there should be further proceedings in the matter. The facts are not in dispute, and the indictments, pleas and judgments in the criminal prosecutions speak for themselves. Respondent\u2019s disqualification is complete. Rut even if the record were less compelling or respondent\u2019s peccancy less glaring,-the findings and recommendation of the Trial Committee, approved and adopted, as they are, by the Council of the State Bar, would perhaps afford sufficient predicate for disbarment on motion of the Attorney-General.\nRespondent disbarred.\nAppeal dismissed.\nSea well, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gover & Covington and Hugh L. Lobdell for North Carolina State Bar, appellant.",
      "B. L. Brown, Jr., G. B. B. Reynolds, and G. Hobart Morton for respondent, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re Disbarment of JOHN M. BRITTAIN.\n(Filed 22 June, 1938.)\n1. Attorney and Client \u00a7\u00a7 12, 15 \u2014 Disbarment ordered in this case by Supreme Court on motion of Attorney-General, it appearing respondent had confessed in open, court to guilt of crimes involving moral turpitude.\nWhen on appeal to the Supreme Court in disbarment proceedings instituted before the Trial Committee of the State Bar, it appears that respondent has confessed his guilt in open court to four crimes, all involving moral turpitude, and nothing is offered in defense or by way of excuse, respondent will he disbarred by order of the Supreme Court upon motion of the Attorney-General without the necessity of deciding the questions sought to be presented by the appeal.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 Sle\u2014\nWhen order of disbarment entered by Supreme Court renders academic the question sought to be presented by the appeal in the disbarment proceedings instituted before the Trial Committee of the State Bar, the appeal will be dismissed.\nSea well, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by'North Carolina State Bar from Rousseau, J., at December Term, 1937, of RaNdolph.\nDisbarment proceeding instituted 10 December, 1935, by the North Carolina State Bar, under authority of ch. 210, Public Laws 1933, and amendments thereto, on allegations showing:\n1. That the respondent, John M. Brittain, was duly licensed to practice law in 1920, and is a member of the North Carolina State Bar.\n2. That on 17 October, 1933, the respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of North Carolina, Rockingham Division, to an indictment charging him with forgery with intent to obtain $208.50 from the United States on a falsely endorsed Yeteran\u2019s Administration check, and with uttering said falsely endorsed instrument on or about 9 August, 1932; that upon said plea the respondent was sentenced to a term of two years in the Federal penitentiary in Atlanta, and that he was thereupon disbarred from practicing law in said court.\n3. That thereafter, at the January Term, 1935, Superior Court of Montgomery County, the respondent pleaded guilty in three cases to charges of embezzlement, forgery and false pretense in obtaining $2,395.93 on or about 17 January, 1933, upon a forged check, and was sentenced to twelve months in the State\u2019s Prison at Raleigh, N. C.\nWherefore, the respondent was ordered to appear before the Trial Committee of the Bar, etc.\nAt tbe bearing before tbe Trial Committee, tbe respondent being present in person and represented by counsel, \u201cstipulates tbat tbe allegations in tbe complaint are true in fact, as therein stated, but in apt time demurs to tbe jurisdiction of tbe Council of tbe North Carolina State Bar to pass upon said matter, for tbat all tbe offenses complained of in tbe said complaint occurred prior to tbe first day of July, 1933,\u201d tbe effective date of tbe act incorporating tbe State Bar.\nTbe demurrer was overruled and tbe committee recommended disbarment, which was adopted by tbe Council and disbarment ordered 16 July, 1937.\nOn appeal to the Superior Court of Randolph County, December Term, 1937, tbe respondent\u2019s demurrer was sustained and tbe order of tbe Council reversed.\nFrom this ruling, tbe North Carolina State Bar appealed, assigning errors.\nOn tbe argument, tbe respondent further challenged tbe constitutionality of tbe act incorporating tbe State Bar. Ob. 210, Public Laws 1933, as amended by cb. 51, Public Laws 1937.\nIt appearing tbat tbe facts are not in dispute, but are admitted, and tbat tbe case is a clear one for disbarment, tbe Attorney-General intervened and suggested tbe propriety of action by tbe court without further proceedings in tbe matter.\nGover & Covington and Hugh L. Lobdell for North Carolina State Bar, appellant.\nB. L. Brown, Jr., G. B. B. Reynolds, and G. Hobart Morton for respondent, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0095-01",
  "first_page_order": 163,
  "last_page_order": 165
}